News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Enough with the Salts: Updates on Secure Password Schemes by geoelectric on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @01:53PM (#9305465)
What I don't understand (truly--I'm a curious neophyte here) is why a random number would be better than salting with, say, their username.

If the assumption is that the random number is known, per both guidelines that only the user-given secret can be assumed secret and that the article says it could conceivably be stored plaintext, isn't it effectively equivalent to just another username?

Re:Enough with the Salts: Updates on Secure Password Schemes by tarentel on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @02:55PM (#9305933)
If two websites use this scheme and they both get hacked and a user has an account on both with the same username/password the attacker has to do half as much work. Another reason is an attacker can compute a rainbow table prior to getting access to the hashed passwords. This would reduce the amount of time the owners of the site would have to respond in the event of a breach. Finally, it's really easy and cheap to generate a random salt.
Re:Enough with the Salts: Updates on Secure Password Schemes by icebraining on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @02:40PM (#9305827)
You can, but it prevents you from allowing changing the username (which might be fine, but why tie yourself?) and it provides less entropy - a username + password can be small enough to fit in a rainbow table, while a random salt can have whatever size you want.
Re:Enough with the Salts: Updates on Secure Password Schemes by nathanaldensr on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @03:10PM (#9306041)
Excellent explanation. I'll further this by adding that, in my use of the excellent PBKDF2.NET library, I generate a salt with the same number of bits that the hashing algorithm generates (e.g., 256-bit salt for SHA256). I can't remember where I read that this was a good practice, though. :(