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: <548BED1A.6090606@bindshell.nl> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2014 23:39:06 -0800 From: epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] How important is salting really? On 12/12/2014 11:33 PM, Steve Thomas wrote: >> On December 12, 2014 at 11:19 PM Ben Harris <ben@...rr.is> wrote: >> >> On 13 December 2014 at 11:00, Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com >> <mailto:steve@...tu.com> > wrote: >> > > >>> P.S. MD5("deliciously-salty-" || pw) is from an infamous article that >>> gets salt >>> wrong :). It's near the top of Google when searching for rainbow tables. >>> > >> Joking aside, if you have a unique "deliciously-salty-", truncate the MD5 to >> 24 bits, and implement a good rate limiting system you'd probably have a >> pretty secure system. Good enough against online attacks, but not so good that >> you are giving up someone's password if you leak hashes. [weak passwords are >> still weak, and leaks from multiple sources for the same UID would eventually >> give up a password] >> > Wait, I don't even know why I argued that way. I can't think of one case where a > severely truncated hash equals more security. Oh wait does my keyboard have a > breathalyzer—nope. Well, we already know that you only use Twitter when you're drunk. So it only stands to reason that you only reply to mailing lists when you've been drinking as well :P
Powered by blists - more mailing lists