phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

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: <55F6F6CD.6010102@riseup.net>
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2015 18:33:17 +0200
From: beloumi <beloumi@...eup.net>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

Am 14.09.2015 um 18:05 schrieb Hugo Landau:
> While it's true that existing crypt() implementations and their base64
> implementation is widespread, RFC 4648 base64 is more prevalent still.
> And consider that the most pressing case for modern password hashing
> is probably not in /etc/shadow, but in the user databases of large,
> popular websites. Developers in this circumstance (or, preferably,
> people developing password hashing libraries) will have RFC 4648
> base64 libraries available to them, but if they have to use crypt()
> base64 they may have to implement it themselves, which creates the
> risk that they will implement it in a subtly buggy or broken fashion.
> I say this from experience; I implemented sha512-crypt in Go, and had
> to implement crypt() base64. Whereas if it had used RFC 4648 base64
> existing base64 libraries could have been reused. Not really a
> problem, but it feels like an unnecessary liability. 
I agree to Hugo.
I had implemented Bcrypt for Bouncy Castle Crypto API (Java).
RFC 4648 would have been available, but I had to write an extra Base64
encoding for Bcrypt.