[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150504175219.GA21278@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 20:52:19 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Maximising Pseudo-Entropy versus resistance to Side-Channel Attacks
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 07:36:05PM +0200, Kriszti?n Pint?r wrote:
>
> Solar Designer (at Thursday, April 30, 2015, 5:55:05 PM):
>
> > While you're mostly correct, you're somehow omitting important detail.
> > As discussed before, salting may defeat side-channel attacks on password
> > hashes, as long as the salts are not known/predictable by the attacker.
>
> this wording is actually accurate, because even secret salts does not
> guarantee safety against side channel attacks. they *may* defeat them,
> but may not.
Right. I actually introduced that "may" deliberately when editing the
paragraph you quoted.
> i understand that this scenario still isn't exactly "probable". and
> using irreversible mixing functions early can thwart such attempts.
> however for example lyra2 or pomelo, i would not tell at a glance
> whether they can be traced backwards if the internal state is
> partially recovered.
I agree with you on this. The hashing scheme has to be specifically
designed such that "as long as the salts are not known/predictable by
the attacker", it is immune to side-channel attacks. And ideally this
should be easy to see. I think in (ye)scrypt it is easy to see (even
though in scrypt this probably wasn't a deliberate design goal).
Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists