News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

eruquen

Re:A Hoare Logic for Rust on Saturday October 01, 2016 @05:45AM (#12617213)
Rustbelt targets unsafe and safe code. In addition, it will also deal with concurrency (incl. weak memory).

Disclaimer: I am affiliated with the project.

Re:CompCert: A formally verified optimizing C compiler on Monday March 02, 2015 @08:47AM (#9131792)
There is on-going research on more modular frameworks that allow for faster implementation of optimizations. One of them is [1]. I worked on that project and implemented (and proved correct) several optimizations within just weeks. This is not industry-ready stuff, though.

[1] http://www.mpi-sws.org/~neis/pils/

Re:Speed Hashing on Friday April 06, 2012 @12:25PM (#3807779)
First of all, you come off as condescending when you say "it's a silly idea" and say that the work factors you mentioned are "real" ones, thereby implying that adding more combinations is not a real work factor.

Second, the actual usefulness of any work factor has to be proven first. Do we know that the iterative approaches offer "real" work factors? What if subsequent iterations are easier to compute by exploiting the structure of the input (i.e. password + result of previous iteration). We have to prove that this is not the case. The same argument holds for peppering, which is also based on computing hashes with a certain structure.

I'd like to hear your arguments as to why certain work factors are more "real" than others, especially peppering.

Re:Speed Hashing on Friday April 06, 2012 @11:15AM (#3807423)
You are right, I should clarify this. For the authentication server the time required jumps from close to nothing to a few ms. For the attacker, the time jumps from a few hours or days to a few years or decades. This asymmetry is what I meant when I said that it's a drastically different picture.

Peppering is applicable to all hashing algorithms unlike the specific parameters you mentioned.

Re:Speed Hashing on Friday April 06, 2012 @10:05AM (#3807167)
Nobody mentioned pepper yet. Not the "static salt" variant which you might find while googling. That is just more security by obscurity. I'm talking about adding a random string of fixed length characters to the (salted) password that is not saved anywhere.

At login, it requires a bit of brute-forcing on the server to check the hash since we have to go trough all possible pepper strings. This adds a few ms (e.g. with a random string of length 4).

Now, on the attacker's side the picture looks drastically different. The amount of time required to brute-force through the already salted hashes grows exponentially with the length of the pepper string. If it takes a few days to crack the whole database without pepper, it might take a few years to do it with pepper. There is absolutely nothing the attacker can do about it. No access to any part of your system will help him or her.