lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <548B59A5.5030501@bindshell.nl> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 13:09:57 -0800 From: epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] How important is salting really? On 12/12/2014 1:05 PM, Samuel Neves wrote: > On 12-12-2014 18:57, Steve Thomas wrote: >> And now for the other "salt table". For those that don't see the need for this, >> it's because you probably haven't ran into a scheme that has lots of salt >> collisions: crypt(3) (12 bit salt >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypt_(C)#Traditional_DES-based_scheme) or >> vBulletin (3 character salt). These cause massive amounts of salt collisions and >> as such you have a table of unique salts "salt table". You run through the salt >> table and remove them when they are no longer needed. If salts are large enough >> there is little difference between a salt table and a list of all the hashes >> with their salts. > Thanks for clearing this up. Since most good password hash functions use salts with at least 128 bits, it is easy to > wonder why indexing by salt would be a good idea. It's not just about indexing by salt, though. You still have to maintain a list of salts to hash each plaintext candidate with, and remove salts from said list when a salt is eliminated. Regardless of how you do it, it is the number of salts, not the number of hashes, that slows down a cracking job. Unless you are working with very large lists on AMD GPUs, but that's a whole nother can of worms.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists