| 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: <CAMtf1Hudmr_Sp9OSwBUdiL0sMUDSpTvWf4feFX7hgjBU8cNV7w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 15:06:08 +0800
From: Ben Harris <mail@...rr.is>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Why protect against side channel attacks
On 25 June 2015 at 14:25, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> In fact, to fully defeat the attack, it is sufficient to have s or h;
> it is not necessary to have both. (In practice, it may be helpful to
> have both for other reasons.)
>
'h' being preferred over 's', as a system without 'h' would still leak
password information as identical passwords would have the same
side-channel data.
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists