phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Why protect against side channel attacks

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

Message-ID: <CA+hr98HFF+JJFfNhLA7vrwUJDXBTA_Z+L503JWuWHf250h-ULA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 16:36:04 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Why protect against side channel attacks

On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Ben Harris <mail@...rr.is> wrote:
>> secret salt disables server relief
>
> You could have the client send
> the password and the server reply with hash(password, salt) which the client
> then does stretching on.

i guess it would, but adds one more round of communication, and also
removes the benefit of not needing the password ever leave the client.

all this hassle just to be able to use something that should not be
used in the first place anyway.