Re:Introducing Authgasm: "Rails authentication done right".
by jonny_noog on Tuesday October 28, 2008 @03:09AM
(#346118)
I can see where you're coming from. And trust me, I'm keenly aware that there are many people who have a better understanding of this and other issues than I do. This is the main reason why I'm using a framework to begin with.
However, as far as I can tell, none of the ready made authentication/password storage schemes for Rails use bcrypt in a cross-platform way, if they did I'd switch over. Where does that leave us? You can take that as a rhetorical question if you like.
Re:Introducing Authgasm: "Rails authentication done right".
by kaens on Wednesday October 29, 2008 @04:23AM
(#347254)
That is a tough spot. I don't use RoR, so I can't offer much advice other than opening a ticket on your preferred methods bug tracker, or creating a patch - assuming they're open source and you're willing / able to do so.
I wasn't trying to come of as critical of you, although I can see how my post could be read that way - I was just making the point that homegrown stuff in this area has a notorious reputation for being unreliable.
I would argue that if using bcrypt makes your passwords harder to crack than using SHA256, there isn't much of a reason to keep using SHA256 - salted or not - regardless of how hard SHA256 is to crack.
And yes, 90% of the time, authentication / password storage schemes exist for whatever framework or platform that you're using that have been thoroughly tested by people who probably know their stuff better than you or I - and, from a security standpoint, it's probably better to use their scheme as opposed to writing one yourself.