phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] hash encryption

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: <CALW8-7+m2eXpL13AX5hqg2PLu4HnvJDo7ec2=gycq5fLY5N0aw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:10:52 +0100
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] hash encryption

On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> > On 23 Mar 2016, at 10:47, Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
> wrote:
> > > Simplest scheme would be SHA-256 in the counter mode.
> > >
> > > Just XOR SHA-256(Key||Nonce||0..0)||SHA-256(Key||Nonce||0..01) to the
> block[4], that's it.
>
> This relies on having a nonce, which is something I am trying to avoid.
>
> We do already have salts, which are preferably unique and could be
> reused, but as I mentioned before I'd like not to increase reliance on
> them being unique.
>
> Alexander
>

Username||Salt instead of Nonce would be fine too. Should be unlikely that
this combination repeats.



-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Khovratovich

Content of type "text/html" skipped