phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Comments from Argon2 and Catena co-designers

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 17:23:28 -0300
From: Marcos Simplicio <mjunior@...c.usp.br>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Comments from Argon2 and Catena co-designers

Hi all.

On 23-Jun-15 06:52, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The PHC panel has been discussing which algorithms to includes in its final
> portfolio (aka "winners"). Panel members believe that Argon2 and Catena are
> the top candidates in the category where they're playing. It's difficult to
> make up our mind though, so to help us we've asked designers of these
> candidates to make the case for their respective candidates.
> 
> For a better transparency, we're publishing those comments below: comments
> by Stefan Lucks from the Catena team (followed by his March 31 votes
> regarding PHC winners), and comments by Dmitry Khovratovich from the Argon2
> team. Both agreed to have their comments published here.
> 
> <CATENA author="Stefan">
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de>
> Date: Tue, May 19, 2015 at 7:55 AM
> Subject: Re: PHC vote
> To: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
> Cc: <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de>
> 
> Lyra2:
> 
> To be precise, Lyra2 is vulnerable to the following form of
> cache-timing attacks: Given some cache-timings, the adversary is able
> to crack low-entropy passwords, even without knowing the password
> hash. Thus, if there is a chance to keep the password hashes secret,
> or to encrypt them, and there is a chance that cache timings might
> leak, then using a highly advanced password hash function, such as
> Lyra2, may be worse than using md5crypt, or even storing the password
> unencrypted.
> 

I do not know md5crypt in detail, but I believe I understand what are
the implications of storing an unencrypted password, so I'm not sure I
agree with that affirmation: any cache-timing information leaked can
only be used after Lyra2's Setup phase is finished.

Hence, an attacker trying to use such information "will have to run the
whole Setup phase and at least a portion of the Wandering phase before
they can use cache-timing information for .filtering guesses" (to quote
Section 5.3 of Lyra2's Reference Guide), paying the corresponding costs
memory and processing costs. That would for example, allow the attacker
to use half of the legitimate user's total memory and processing time,
employing an strategy similar to that of section 5.1.2.1, assuming that
such TMTO does not reduce the value of the cache-timing information (and
that may be a strong assumption...).

This 1/4 TA reduction is nearly a "best case" scenario, and contrasts
with algorithms having memory-dependent accesses sooner, in which the
cache-timing information can be employed long before the memory is
filled or any TMTO becomes necessary. And it is likely much better than
just getting the password from the memory with zero effort...

Or did I misunderstand what you meant (and, in that case, this email was
totally unnecessary :) )?

BR,

Marcos.