Message-ID: <CAGiyFdei91KFndFauxkUAZEX=zaPndzV0JvDFUiAUn0FkG1uNg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 19:05:38 +0000
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

Thanks Alex.

Re ordering: I also meant the fixed order that makes the most sense for the
primitive, rather than lex order. The order should just be well-defined and
unambiguous.

I'd also encourage a non-bloated syntax, since there's no benefit of having
a better human-readable encoding. Also important is the consistency with
the current standard.



On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 6:10 PM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> Hi Thomas and all,
>
> On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 08:26:50PM +0200, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> > here is my take at specifying a string format for the output of a
> > password hashing function; this aims at supporting password verification
> > in a way compatible, in particular, with the Unix crypt() API and the
> > /etc/shadow files. This is not for use of a function as a KDF. I tried
> > to remain as generic as possible, although of course the primary target
> > is Argon2.
>
> First of all, thank you for working on this!
>
> Then, I'm sorry for being a bit late with my feedback.  Yet maybe better
> late than never, so here goes:
>
> I dislike use of <param>=<value>, as opposed to just listing the values.
>
> I also find it inconsistent that the proposed syntax mixes bloated
> constructions such as long identifier names, use of <param>=<value>, and
> use of decimal with the more compact choice of crypt(3) base64 encoding
> rather than RFC Base64.  I think we should consistently opt for a
> compact or a bloated encoding, and I'd prefer compact, but if you do
> bloated, then do it to the fullest extent (and we'll have a compact
> alternative then).
>
> I do see value in listing of the parameters in a fixed order (and in
> having no defaults and in listing all parameters all the time as well,
> despite of the drawbacks).  However, when that fixed order comes from
> lexicographic order of parameter names it may end up being otherwise
> weird, and inconsistent with what we already have for scrypt.  Given
> that yescrypt builds upon scrypt and supports scrypt compatible mode,
> I'd like to have its parameters common with scrypt listed first and in
> the same order as is commonly used with scrypt.  This is N, r, p, but
> lexicographic order would result in N, p, r.  I find having to introduce
> this inconsistency, if we adopt your proposal as currently specified,
> unfortunate.
>
> It could also be nice to be able to omit yescrypt's additional
> parameters that are not in scrypt - in other words, use this opportunity
> to introduce a syntax for scrypt that would address some limitations of
> what we previously defined for scrypt, without having to list yescrypt's
> parameters.  Well, I guess we can do that within your specification by
> allocating a separate identifier string for scrypt.
>
> The use of crypt(3) base64 could help encode the parameters in a more
> compact way, e.g. use just one char (and no separator before/after it)
> for (ye)scrypt's log2(N).  I find it suboptimal to go for crypt(3)
> base64 yet not take full advantage of it.
>
> Overall, I think this verbose syntax might hamper adoption by some
> projects.  I also think that if we go for a verbose and human and
> scripting friendly syntax for the parameters anyway, we should as well
> bite the bullet of RFC Base64 with its extra padding characters.  Having
> 3 extra characters is negligible compared to the bloat we already have
> in the proposed long identifiers and the encoding of parameters.
> I actually prefer crypt(3) base64, but I dislike the bloat already
> proposed enough that going for RFC Base64 just doesn't make it all that
> much worse for me, while making it better for others.  I'll probably
> come up with an alternative compact encoding anyway, and this one may be
> bloated to the fullest extent then.  OTOH, it's nice to have a common
> encoding type (and common code) between the compact and bloated forms,
> so maybe your choice is right from that point of view.
>
> Also, if we go for a bloated syntax anyway, we probably should use the
> opportunity to allow for encoding of arbitrarily small or large salts,
> and arbitrary hash sizes.  So that e.g. if crypt() is available via
> pgcrypto or something, thus via SQL queries in this example, its support
> for a PHC scheme could then be reused to compute that scheme with
> arbitrary inputs with no artificial restrictions.  e.g. to derive
> multiple keys at once (where 256 bits could be too little).  I don't
> feel about this strongly, but overall I feel that we should either avoid
> bloat or use the potential advantages of the bloat to the fullest,
> whereas the proposed encoding does neither.
>
> Sorry for the criticism.  Again, I appreciate the effort.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists