phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Argon2 improvement thread

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: <CAOLP8p4yVMtO8+UUQszDEAyEtLtAZ6X5+68Y5VA2BXbAcgPhVA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 08:20:56 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>, Alex Biryukov - UNI <alex.biryukov@....lu>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Argon2 improvement thread

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com
> wrote:

> Dear community,
>
> So far we support most of the API and minor corrections to the scheme that
> do not change its functionality and do not make it more complex.
> Complexity, as we see it, is one of the greatest enemies of security.
>
> =============MAXFORM============
>
> In this case, I think it is fortunate that Yescrypt made it as a
recommended solution for situations requiring the defenses it has to
offer.  I think this will be most use cases.


> =========================Hybrid scheme===
>
> It has been proposed to add another version of Argon2, which is a
> combination of Argon2d and Argon2i. In more details, the first half (or so)
> of the memory should be filled with data-independent addressing, and the
> rest with data-dependent addressing. The motivation is to reduce the
> side-channel leakage for 1-pass Argon2d  at the cost of reduced tradeoff
> resilience and the overall latency. The drawback of this proposal is
> threefold: 1) yet another primitive 2) the side-channel leakage is reduced
> but not removed, which still restricts the use case. 3) the tradeoff
> becomes more favourable to the attacker.
>

I agree with 1) and 2), but not 3).  Against brute-force off-line guessing,
a hybrid architecture is just as strong as a purely password-dependent one.


> Clearly, such update would make sense only for 1- or 2-pass Argon2d, since
> for 3 passes and more Argon2i comes into play.
>

I agree, but I also feel the use-cases for more than 1 pass are as rare as
the use cases for Argon2i.  Embedded in a TPM chip, Argon2i could help
protect secrets stored in the device.  This is the best use case that comes
to mind.


> We think that the drawbacks currently outweigh the positive effect, in
> particular we are concerned of the fact that the scheme is weaker than both
> existing variants in some scenarios. Still, it can be possible to include
> it as a possible extension, though not recommended by the designers but
> available to those who desperately want such a scheme.
>

In what scenario would a hybrid be weaker than Argon2d?

In any case, not merging Argon2d/Argon2i with a new parameter is fine.
This is a non-critical featuer, IMO.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped