I've been told that email is a bad salt, because it's not unique and connected to the user.
And if a user uses the same password on 2 sites, there will be equal hash.
So, what's wrong with it? what is attack scenario?
Suppose we have both hash and salt. So, other site has the same hash in their database.
How can we do any harm to this user on the other site? Can we at all?
I don't see any possibility, but I am not an expert in security, so, I'd like to hear from ones who are, with practical and concrete answers, of course.
I am not going to break anything. I am asking this question in the context of this one: is email or (registration timestamp) a good salt?
Certain and practical answers, please.
The point of a salt is not to be unknown, it is to prevent attackers from amortizing the cost of a brute force or dictionary attack across all users of a site (or even all users of many sites).
Thus, the problem of using a non-random salt like the email address is that it would show an attacker which users are using the same password on several sites, and which would therefore yield access to several accounts at once if cracked via brute force or dictionary attack. For the email address (and everything that is unique per user), this is a rather hypothetical problem since it assumes the attacker has the account data of several sites with considerable overlap in users.
Another problem with using the email address is that users will want to change it - which would be impossible if you use it as salt unless you store it in a separate salt column as well or require people to always change their password together with their email.
This is mostly a theoretical question. So, how does "cracking a hashed value" work? There are so called "rainbow tables", that are just list with common words and theire hash value. For salted hashes an attacker needs such tables also with salted hashes. So in theory with unique salts for every user an attacker needs one table for every salt (=> user). If you have a static salt, he "just" needs one table for your db. Its quite expensive to create such tables, so in most cases its not worth to create it just for a single page.
Conclusion: Its (of course) safer, to use unique salts for every user, but on a veeery high level. A static salts is usually "safe enough".
The first attack I can think of is:
a user has the same salt and password at two sites
both sites have a flaw to allow reading the salted passwords
one site makes reading a password or brute-force guessing a password easy
An attacker could quickly look at identical salted passwords on both sites and find users with identical passwords at both sites. Then read the password or guess the password on the weaker site, and use it on the more secure site.
Granted, different salts wouldn't make the problem significantly better because all million passwords can be tried eventually. But knowing which users have identical passwords would be much 'quieter' than just blindly trying all the users' passwords on the stronger site.
Think of the web sites you've programmed - I bet the most powerful users in these systems have very common usernames like admin, root, etc. As an attacker I can generate a precomputed hash list containing the most common usernames with the weakest and most common passwords - that is, if a web programmer is naive enough to salt their passwords with usernames, my job as an attacker has become much, much easier - the collisions are very predictable.
Using an email address as a salt is better, but the same principle applies. Assuming I've cracked one database that uses an email-based salt I'll have a much easier time cracking every other database that does the same - at least, for email/password combinations that exist across databases. (Given the amount of login reuse, that's a very likely). It's not as simple as with the username salts, but the collisions are out there, waiting to be discovered.
As a programmer what I really want is a password hash that won't collide - ever. A universally unique hash for each user that can't be found in any other database in the world. That's a tall order, but it's doable with a sufficiently long, randomly generated salt.
There's a herd immunity effect in play - using a bad salt makes it easier for attackers to attack similar systems after they've compromised your database. A strong salt will always protect your users and help other userbases from being compromised.
Can't really help you in terms of security, but if you look at vBulletin for example, each user gets their own generated salt, which they use the encrypt the password like this:
$password = md5(md5($clear_password) + $salt);
So the salt will be different for each user and any site where vBulletin is running (at least a pretty good chance that it will be different), so the stored password, in turn will be different for each site.
It's not what you were asking for, but something to meditate on :)
Assume the hacker has both password and salt, AND access to your hashing formula.
This will NOT prevent a dictionary attack, contrary to popular beleif. It will stop a simple dictionary attack, but iterating the dictionary with the salts per user account is perfectly possible.
See: Why do salts make dictionary attacks 'impossible'? for more related information.
This is why when you generate the hash of the password, instead of hashing once with salt, IE:
hashedPW = sha1(rawPassword + salt)
You would do:
hashedPW = sha1(rawPassword + salt)
for i = 0; i < 2000; i++){
hashedPW = sha1(hashedPW + salt)
}
The multi hash function should take a significant fraction of a second to calculate. This means when the hacker gains access to the database, the dictionary attack then becomes exponentially more time consuming only allowing him to crack a very small % of user accounts.
If the salt is already known, then you have bigger problems on your hands.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_attack
Related
I'm having some trouble understanding the purpose of a salt to a password. It's my understanding that the primary use is to hamper a rainbow table attack. However, the methods I've seen to implement this don't seem to really make the problem harder.
I've seen many tutorials suggesting that the salt be used as the following:
$hash = md5($salt.$password)
The reasoning being that the hash now maps not to the original password, but a combination of the password and the salt. But say $salt=foo and $password=bar and $hash=3858f62230ac3c915f300c664312c63f. Now somebody with a rainbow table could reverse the hash and come up with the input "foobar". They could then try all combinations of passwords (f, fo, foo, ... oobar, obar, bar, ar, ar). It might take a few more milliseconds to get the password, but not much else.
The other use I've seen is on my linux system. In the /etc/shadow the hashed passwords are actually stored with the salt. For example, a salt of "foo" and password of "bar" would hash to this: $1$foo$te5SBM.7C25fFDu6bIRbX1. If a hacker somehow were able to get his hands on this file, I don't see what purpose the salt serves, since the reverse hash of te5SBM.7C25fFDu6bIRbX is known to contain "foo".
Thanks for any light anybody can shed on this.
EDIT: Thanks for the help. To summarize what I understand, the salt makes the hashed password more complex, thus making it much less likely to exist in a precomputed rainbow table. What I misunderstood before was that I was assuming a rainbow table existed for ALL hashes.
A public salt will not make dictionary attacks harder when cracking a single password. As you've pointed out, the attacker has access to both the hashed password and the salt, so when running the dictionary attack, she can simply use the known salt when attempting to crack the password.
A public salt does two things: makes it more time-consuming to crack a large list of passwords, and makes it infeasible to use a rainbow table.
To understand the first one, imagine a single password file that contains hundreds of usernames and passwords. Without a salt, I could compute "md5(attempt[0])", and then scan through the file to see if that hash shows up anywhere. If salts are present, then I have to compute "md5(salt[a] . attempt[0])", compare against entry A, then "md5(salt[b] . attempt[0])", compare against entry B, etc. Now I have n times as much work to do, where n is the number of usernames and passwords contained in the file.
To understand the second one, you have to understand what a rainbow table is. A rainbow table is a large list of pre-computed hashes for commonly-used passwords. Imagine again the password file without salts. All I have to do is go through each line of the file, pull out the hashed password, and look it up in the rainbow table. I never have to compute a single hash. If the look-up is considerably faster than the hash function (which it probably is), this will considerably speed up cracking the file.
But if the password file is salted, then the rainbow table would have to contain "salt . password" pre-hashed. If the salt is sufficiently random, this is very unlikely. I'll probably have things like "hello" and "foobar" and "qwerty" in my list of commonly-used, pre-hashed passwords (the rainbow table), but I'm not going to have things like "jX95psDZhello" or "LPgB0sdgxfoobar" or "dZVUABJtqwerty" pre-computed. That would make the rainbow table prohibitively large.
So, the salt reduces the attacker back to one-computation-per-row-per-attempt, which, when coupled with a sufficiently long, sufficiently random password, is (generally speaking) uncrackable.
The other answers don't seem to address your misunderstandings of the topic, so here goes:
Two different uses of salt
I've seen many tutorials suggesting that the salt be used as the following:
$hash = md5($salt.$password)
[...]
The other use I've seen is on my linux system. In the /etc/shadow the hashed passwords are actually stored with the salt.
You always have to store the salt with the password, because in order to validate what the user entered against your password database, you have to combine the input with the salt, hash it and compare it to the stored hash.
Security of the hash
Now somebody with a rainbow table could reverse the hash and come up with the input "foobar".
[...]
since the reverse hash of te5SBM.7C25fFDu6bIRbX is known to contain "foo".
It is not possible to reverse the hash as such (in theory, at least). The hash of "foo" and the hash of "saltfoo" have nothing in common. Changing even one bit in the input of a cryptographic hash function should completely change the output.
This means you cannot build a rainbow table with the common passwords and then later "update" it with some salt. You have to take the salt into account from the beginning.
This is the whole reason for why you need a rainbow table in the first place. Because you cannot get to the password from the hash, you precompute all the hashes of the most likely used passwords and then compare your hashes with their hashes.
Quality of the salt
But say $salt=foo
"foo" would be an extremely poor choice of salt. Normally you would use a random value, encoded in ASCII.
Also, each password has it's own salt, different (hopefully) from all other salts on the system. This means, that the attacker has to attack each password individually instead of having the hope that one of the hashes matches one of the values in her database.
The attack
If a hacker somehow were able to get his hands on this file, I don't see what purpose the salt serves,
A rainbow table attack always needs /etc/passwd (or whatever password database is used), or else how would you compare the hashes in the rainbow table to the hashes of the actual passwords?
As for the purpose: let's say the attacker wants to build a rainbow table for 100,000 commonly used english words and typical passwords (think "secret"). Without salt she would have to precompute 100,000 hashes. Even with the traditional UNIX salt of 2 characters (each is one of 64 choices: [a–zA–Z0–9./]) she would have to compute and store 4,096,000,000 hashes... quite an improvement.
The idea with the salt is to make it much harder to guess with brute-force than a normal character-based password. Rainbow tables are often built with a special character set in mind, and don't always include all possible combinations (though they can).
So a good salt value would be a random 128-bit or longer integer. This is what makes rainbow-table attacks fail. By using a different salt value for each stored password, you also ensure that a rainbow table built for one particular salt value (as could be the case if you're a popular system with a single salt value) does not give you access to all passwords at once.
Yet another great question, with many very thoughtful answers -- +1 to SO!
One small point that I haven't seen mentioned explicitly is that, by adding a random salt to each password, you're virtually guaranteeing that two users who happened to choose the same password will produce different hashes.
Why is this important?
Imagine the password database at a large software company in the northwest US. Suppose it contains 30,000 entries, of which 500 have the password bluescreen. Suppose further that a hacker manages to obtain this password, say by reading it in an email from the user to the IT department. If the passwords are unsalted, the hacker can find the hashed value in the database, then simply pattern-match it to gain access to the other 499 accounts.
Salting the passwords ensures that each of the 500 accounts has a unique (salt+password), generating a different hash for each of them, and thereby reducing the breach to a single account. And let's hope, against all probability, that any user naive enough to write a plaintext password in an email message doesn't have access to the undocumented API for the next OS.
I was searching for a good method to apply salts and found this excelent article with sample code:
http://crackstation.net/hashing-security.htm
The author recomends using random salts per user, so that gaining access to a salt won't render the entire list of hashes as easy to crack.
To Store a Password:
Generate a long random salt using a CSPRNG.
Prepend the salt to the password and hash it with a standard
cryptographic hash function such as SHA256.
Save both the salt and the hash in the user's database record.
To Validate a Password :
Retrieve the user's salt and hash from the database.
Prepend the salt to the given password and hash it using the same hash function.
Compare the hash of the given password with the hash from the database. If they
match, the password is correct. Otherwise, the password is incorrect.
The reason a salt can make a rainbow-table attack fail is that for n-bits of salt, the rainbow table has to be 2^n times larger than the table size without the salt.
Your example of using 'foo' as a salt could make the rainbow-table 16 million times larger.
Given Carl's example of a 128-bit salt, this makes the table 2^128 times larger - now that's big - or put another way, how long before someone has portable storage that big?
Most methods of breaking hash based encryption rely on brute force attacks. A rainbow attack is essentially a more efficient dictionary attack, it's designed to use the low cost of digital storage to enable creation of a map of a substantial subset of possible passwords to hashes, and facilitate the reverse mapping. This sort of attack works because many passwords tend to be either fairly short or use one of a few patterns of word based formats.
Such attacks are ineffective in the case where passwords contain many more characters and do not conform to common word based formats. A user with a strong password to start with won't be vulnerable to this style of attack. Unfortunately, many people do not pick good passwords. But there's a compromise, you can improve a user's password by adding random junk to it. So now, instead of "hunter2" their password could become effectively "hunter2908!fld2R75{R7/;508PEzoz^U430", which is a much stronger password. However, because you now have to store this additional password component this reduces the effectiveness of the stronger composite password. As it turns out, there's still a net benefit to such a scheme since now each password, even the weak ones, are no longer vulnerable to the same pre-computed hash / rainbow table. Instead, each password hash entry is vulnerable only to a unique hash table.
Say you have a site which has weak password strength requirements. If you use no password salt at all your hashes are vulnerable to pre-computed hash tables, someone with access to your hashes would thus have access to the passwords for a large percentage of your users (however many used vulnerable passwords, which would be a substantial percentage). If you use a constant password salt then pre-computed hash tables are no longer valuable, so someone would have to spend the time to compute a custom hash table for that salt, they could do so incrementally though, computing tables which cover ever greater permutations of the problem space. The most vulnerable passwords (e.g. simple word based passwords, very short alphanumeric passwords) would be cracked in hours or days, less vulnerable passwords would be cracked after a few weeks or months. As time goes on an attacker would gain access to passwords for an ever growing percentage of your users. If you use a unique salt for every password then it would take days or months to gain access to each one of those vulnerable passwords.
As you can see, when you step up from no salt to a constant salt to a unique salt you impose a several orders of magnitude increase in effort to crack vulnerable passwords at each step. Without a salt the weakest of your users' passwords are trivially accessible, with a constant salt those weak passwords are accessible to a determined attacker, with a unique salt the cost of accessing passwords is raised so high that only the most determined attacker could gain access to a tiny subset of vulnerable passwords, and then only at great expense.
Which is precisely the situation to be in. You can never fully protect users from poor password choice, but you can raise the cost of compromising your users' passwords to a level that makes compromising even one user's password prohibitively expensive.
One purpose of salting is to defeat precomputed hash tables. If someone has a list of millions of pre-computed hashes, they aren't going to be able to look up $1$foo$te5SBM.7C25fFDu6bIRbX1 in their table even though they know the hash and the salt. They'll still have to brute force it.
Another purpose, as Carl S mentions is to make brute forcing a list of hashes more expensive. (give them all different salts)
Both of these objectives are still accomplished even if the salts are public.
As far as I know, the salt is intended to make dictionary attacks harder.
It's a known fact that many people will use common words for passwords instead of seemingly random strings.
So, a hacker could use this to his advantage instead of using just brute force. He will not look for passwords like aaa, aab, aac... but instead use words and common passwords (like lord of the rings names! ;) )
So if my password is Legolas a hacker could try that and guess it with a "few" tries. However if we salt the password and it becomes fooLegolas the hash will be different, so the dictionary attack will be unsuccessful.
Hope that helps!
I assume that you are using PHP --- md5() function, and $ preceded variables --- then, you can try looking this article Shadow Password HOWTO Specially the 11th paragraph.
Also, you are afraid of using message digest algorithms, you can try real cipher algorithms, such as the ones provided by the mcrypt module, or more stronger message digest algorithms, such as the ones that provide the mhash module (sha1, sha256, and others).
I think that stronger message digest algorithm are a must. It's known that MD5 and SHA1 are having collision problems.
I am facing the never ending problem How to store passwords in DB?. As far as I read recently there ware a few of the previously considered safe algorithms, which had been marked as insecure. So I am struggling to find a up-to-date resource which describes the ones that are not secure any more.
I was thinking of combining two or three algos, but I remember back in the day it was considered insecure, i.e exposes the hash to attacks. The combination I was thinking of was something like that:
data_h1 = sha256(sha1(data_salt).sha1([username|email]).sha1(data_peper))
data_h2 = sha256(sha1(data_salt).sha1(user_entered_password).sha1(data_pepper))
hmac(
sha512,
data,
sha512(general_salt.data_h1.data_h2.general_pepper)
);
Where data_salt and data_pepper are constants, hard-coded in to the application, but are different than general_salt and general_pepper which are as well hard-coded constants. [username|email] is the value supplied by the user on registration and when logging in, as well as *user_entered_password* (doh!).
Will this compromise security in some way? (if no go to next)
Will there be a major bottleneck due to the hash-o-mania which will be going on in the process of generation? (go to next)
Any recommendations on the approach showed above?
My questions goes for PHP, but will be good to see what will you guys recommend and what will your comments be in general, b`cuz I do think that this is very common task, and many people still use only MD5 or SHA1 (or better yet, storing in plain text).
The main reason not to use SHA-1 or SHA-256 alone for hashing passwords is that
they are fast, relatively speaking. Password authentication is vulnerable to dictionary
attacks and brute-force attacks, since users tend to include common words in their passwords
and use relatively short passwords, making them easier to guess than encryption keys.
Hash functions like bcrypt and PBKDF2 are recommended because they are slow.
They can be tuned to take almost any amount of time; it should take as long as
possible to hash a password without causing unreasonable delay. This will help slow
dictionary attacks and brute force attacks.
However, this is not the only security consideration for password storage.
When "storing" passwords you do not actually store the password, you store its one-way hash. The reason for this is to prevent even someone with access to the system from learning a user's password. The "one way" aspect of the hash means that, while it is possible to create a hash from the plaintext, it is impossible to learn the plaintext from the hash.
In addition, all passwords should be concatenated with salt (a random sequence of digits) before being hashed. The salt value should be stored along with the hash in the database. The salt must be ROW-SPECIFIC, i.e. every password should have its own salt.
Why must hashes be row-specific? Imagine a hacker has somehow obtained a copy of your database. Normally he's up against a pretty big brute force task. If you have only one hash, the hacker can examine all the rows and find rows that occur the most frequently, because the same password + the same salt always renders the same hash. So with this information he can guess that those rows contain commonly-used passwords. He can then use that information to reduce the size of his brute force problem. Or he can try to learn one of those users' passwords and then be able to use that password on any of the other users' accounts that have the same hash. The whole point of the salt is to prevent attacks of that nature.
Use a decent one-way cryptographically secure hash with a user-specific salt. That is the standard means of storing passwords.
The addition of application-specific "pepper" (which is the same every row, and must be cryptographically random and held in a secure location) tranforms the hash into an HMAC (Hash-Based Message Authentication Code), which is even better. If someone knows your hashing algorithm and salt but doesn't know the pepper, he will have a much harder time guessing the password.
So recently I have been doing tons of research on how to secure passwords. I believe I understand the basics of it. As such I am attempting to write my own function to secure a password in php.
But I am somewhat confused when it comes to salting a password. We create a random unique salt and append it to a password and then hash it, and finally store the unhashed salt and hashed password/salt combination together in the database. This increases the search space of the hacker if he obtains access to the database and our hashed passwords.
So this seems like complete overkill of security, but everywhere I see the salt is always appended to the front or back of the password anyways. So looking at a SINGLE user's password this unique salt doesn't affect the search space does it? Although since each user has a unique salt the overall search space of EVERY user is dramatically increased.
Wouldn't it be more secure to create an algorithm that inserts the salt to a predictable, semi-random place in the password such as the length of the username/2? For example here is the steps of my proposed securing function:
Create a random salt
take username length %(mod) password length
insert the salt at the spot determined
hash
Example run:
random salt = 12345
len("imauserwithalongname") % len("mypass") = 2
valueToHash = my12345pass
Now our cracker has no idea where to put the salt without seeing our php/source, which (correct me if I am wrong) is much harder to gain access to than the database.
Also I know security should depend on the security of the key not secrecy of the algorithm, however I see nothing wrong with adding layers based on it, as long as the entire system does not depend on secrecy of the algorithm.
EDIT: Would doing this dramatically increase the search space of a cracker?
And what if we placed the salt in a place that depended on the length of the password, would that not destroy the purpose of using dictionary attacks, even on a per user basis?
Inserting the salt in a different spot doesn't increase the search space. If you are using a random salt for each user, a hacker does not know what each salt is per user anyway. The knowledge of its position in the unhashed string doesn't matter.
Use bcrypt or PBKDF2. Both algorithms enforce a salt and number of cycles. If you're patient enough, PHP 5.5 will just let you do password_hash($password).
As such I am attempting to write my own function to secure a password
in php.
Woah woah, hold it right there.
There's a saying passed down from cryptographers to us mere mortals which has held true for many many years. The saying goes like this:
Do not invent your own crypto.
Say it out loud, then say it again.
I know you're only trying to secure your passwords, but I had to get that out of the way. There are lots and lots of tried and tested methods to do what you want to achieve.
I appreciate you've done some research, but the internet is full of terrible terrible information, so I'm going to point you towards some useful articles.
Check out ircmaxell's security related
blogs.
A nice short list.
Here's some keywords to help you.
Bcrypt
Scrypt (someone please unstrike this when PHP supports it)
Again a very short list.
To address your specific concern. Salts are not needed to be kept private, as you say they are designed to stop attackers precomputing tables of valid password/hash combinations. However if you use a weak hashing algorithm they lose their value very quickly.
Security through obscurity is not as great as it seems. If a hacker gains access to your DB, the odds are quite high that they will also gain access to your filesystem. If they gain access to your source your custom method of storing passwords is a moot point.
In summary, custom algorithm + weak hash = insecure.
Instead you want to use tried and tested key derivation functions / key strengthening algorithms.
These are designed to make the computer work really hard to generate the hash, and makes it very difficult for an attacker to brute force a password.
Bcrypt stores the salt next to the password, and is proven to be very secure. Secure enough in fact that it is currently the recommended way to hash passwords by security experts.
In PHP 5.5 a simple password hashing API has been introduced based on Bcrypt, and for versions under 5.5 there is a password hashing compatibility library that does exactly the same thing.
That should be enough for you.
I personally think you're overdoing it. The most efficient way to salt a hash would be to have a dynamic, record-specif one AND a static one stored in a read-only file on the system. This is a very efficient yet secure way of salting hashes.
I think you misunderstood the purpose of the salt. The salt does not increase the search space for an attacker, after all it is stored plaintext with the hash-value. The purpose of a salt is, that an attacker cannot build one single rainbowtable, and then retrieve all stored passwords.
If you would append the same salt to every password, then the attacker cannot simply use an existing precalculated rainbow-table from the internet, he has to build a new rainbow-table for exactly this salt (existing rainbow-tables will contain passwords like "horse", but not passwords like horse8ze*w398dhek3+qmxno0). Unfortunately this single rainbow-table can then be used to get all passwords.
So we use a unique salt for every password. An attacker would have to build a separate rainbow-table for each password now, but why should he continue with building the table, when he already found a match (?), he cannot reuse the table later for other passwords. In other words, brute-force is faster than building a rainbow-table, so we made rainbow-tables useless.
So the salt should be unique for each password and if possible it should be unpredictable. Those criterias are difficult to fulfill with a deterministic computer, the best you can do is, to use the random source of the operating system to build the salts. Good hash algorithms for passwords like BCrypt and PBKDF2 repeat the hashing to become slow, and combine password and original salt in each iteration. It is not just a concatenation of password + salt.
Your idea about putting the salt somewhere secret does add a secret (where is the salt?), that will work as long as the attacker doesnt know your code. Getting the database (SQL-injection) is indeed easier than gaining access to the code, but the same goal can be achieved much easier with a pepper.
I tried to sum up this in a tutorial, maybe you want to have a look at it.
I'm looking at some code that I have not written myself. The code tries to hash a password with SHA512 and uses just time() as the salt. Is time() too simple a salt for this or is this code safe?
Thanks for the answers and comments. I will sum it up here for the new readers:
salt should be different for each user, so if 2 users register at the same time, their salts won't be unique. This is a problem, but not a big one.
but salt shouldn't be in any way related to the user, so time() is not a good salt.
"Use a random, evenly distributed, high entropy salt." -- That's a mouthful, so what code could possibly generate a random, evenly distributed, high entropy salt?
Ok, so how about I replace time() with a random string 32 char long. The random string could be generated from looping 32 times over a set of alphabet chars. Does that sound good?
Short answer:
No, time() is not a good salt.
Long answer:
copied from my answer to Salt Generation and open source software
What is a salt?
A salt is a random set of bytes of a fixed length that is added to the input of a hash algorithm.
Why is salting (or seeding) a hash useful?
Adding a random salt to a hash ensures that the same password will produce many different hashes. The salt is usually stored in the database, together with the result of the hash function.
Salting a hash is good for a number of reasons:
Salting greatly increases the difficulty/cost of precomputated attacks (including rainbow tables)
Salting makes sure that the same password does not result in the same hash.
This makes sure you cannot determine if two users have the same password. And, even more important, you cannot determine if the same person uses the same password across different systems.
Salting increases the complexity of passwords, thereby greatly decreasing the effectiveness of both Dictionary- and Birthday attacks. (This is only true if the salt is stored separate from the hash).
Proper salting greatly increases the storage need for precomputation attacks, up to the point where they are no longer practical. (8 character case-sensitive alpha-numeric passwords with 16 bit salt, hashed to a 128 bit value, would take up just under 200 exabytes without rainbow reduction).
There is no need for the salt to be secret.
A salt is not a secret key, instead a salt 'works' by making the hash function specific to each instance. With salted hash, there is not one hash function, but one for every possible salt value. This prevent the attacker from attacking N hashed passwords for less than N times the cost of attacking one password. This is the point of the salt.
A "secret salt" is not a salt, it is called a "key", and it means that you are no longer computing a hash, but a Message Authentication Code (MAC). Computing MAC is tricky business (much trickier than simply slapping together a key and a value into a hash function) and it is a very different subject altogether.
The salt must be random for every instance in which it is used. This ensures that an attacker has to attack every salted hash separately.
If you rely on your salt (or salting algorithm) being secret, you enter the realms of Security Through Obscurity (won't work). Most probably, you do not get additional security from the salt secrecy; you just get the warm fuzzy feeling of security. So instead of making your system more secure, it just distracts you from reality.
So, why does the salt have to be random?
Technically, the salt should be unique. The point of the salt is to be distinct for each hashed password. This is meant worldwide. Since there is no central organization which distributes unique salts on demand, we have to rely on the next best thing, which is random selection with an unpredictable random generator, preferably within a salt space large enough to make collisions improbable (two instances using the same salt value).
It is tempting to try to derive a salt from some data which is "presumably unique", such as the user ID, but such schemes often fail due to some nasty details:
If you use for example the user ID, some bad guys, attacking distinct systems, may just pool their resources and create precomputed tables for user IDs 1 to 50. A user ID is unique system-wide but not worldwide.
The same applies to the username: there is one "root" per Unix system, but there are many roots in the world. A rainbow table for "root" would be worth the effort, since it could be applied to millions of systems. Worse yet, there are also many "bob" out there, and many do not have sysadmin training: their passwords could be quite weak.
Uniqueness is also temporal. Sometimes, users change their password. For each new password, a new salt must be selected. Otherwise, an attacker obtained the hash of the old password and the hash of the new could try to attack both simultaneously.
Using a random salt obtained from a cryptographically secure, unpredictable PRNG may be some kind of overkill, but at least it provably protects you against all those hazards. It's not about preventing the attacker from knowing what an individual salt is, it's about not giving them the big, fat target that will be used on a substantial number of potential targets. Random selection makes the targets as thin as is practical.
In conclusion:
Use a random, evenly distributed, high entropy salt. Use a new salt whenever you create a new password or change a password. Store the salt along with the hashed password. Favor big salts (at least 10 bytes, preferably 16 or more).
A salt does not turn a bad password into a good password. It just makes sure that the attacker will at least pay the dictionary attack price for each bad password he breaks.
Usefull sources:
stackoverflow.com: Non-random salt for password hashes
Bruce Schneier: Practical Cryptography (book)
Matasano Security: Enough with the Rainbow Tables
usenix.org: Unix crypt used salt since 1976
owasp.org: Why add salt
openwall.com: Salts
Disclaimer:
I'm not a security expert. (Although this answer was reviewed by Thomas Pornin)
If any of the security professionals out there find something wrong, please do comment or edit this wiki answer.
As for what seems to be a good source for your random salt
Also read: What is the most secure seed for random number generation?
In the absence of dedicated, hardware based, random generators, the best way of obtaining random data is to ask the operating system (on Linux, this is called /dev/random or /dev/urandom [both have advantages and problems, choose your poison]; on Windows, call CryptGenRandom())
If for some reason you do not have access to the above mentioned sources of random, in PHP you could use the following function:
From the source of phpass v0.3
<?php
/**
* Generate pseudo random bits
* #copyright: public domain
* #link http://www.openwall.com/phpass/
* #param int $length number of bits to generate
* #return string A string with the hexadecimal number
* #note don't try to improve this, you will likely just ruin it
*/
function random_bits($entropy) {
$entropy /= 8;
$state = uniqid();
$str = '';
for ($i = 0; $i < $entropy; $i += 16) {
$state = md5(microtime().$state);
$str .= md5($state, true);
}
$str = unpack('H*', substr($str, 0, $entropy));
// for some weird reason, on some machines 32 bits binary data comes out as 65! hex characters!?
// so, added the substr
return substr(str_pad($str[1], $entropy*2, '0'), 0, $entropy*2);
}
?>
Updated
It's not a really good salt, but probably good enough to defeat all but the most determined and resourceful attackers. The requirements for a good salt are:
Different for each user
long enough (at the very least alphanumeric 8 characters) to make the concatenation of salt and (potentially weak) password too long for a brute force attack.
time() values are not really long enough, since they have 10 characters, but only digits.
Also, sometimes two users may get the same value when they are created within the same second. But that's only a problem if you have situations where many users are automatically created within the same second.
In any case, far more important than a perfect salt is using a good hash function, and SHA512 is one of the best we have available right now.
This post may veer a little too far away from your original question, but I hope you find it useful;
Security is about raising barriers and hurdles; defence in depth. There is no truly secure hashing solution, just ones that are hard to break. It's like putting in a burglar alarm and window locks in your house - make your site less attractive to break into than someone else's.
Salt for a crypt algorithm is only a small part of the security problem. A single salt simply means that there is one less thing to figure out when trying to break the password for multiple users. A low-entropy salt (such as the server's time) makes it a little bit harder, and a high-entropy salt makes it harder still. Which of these to use, and whether it's something you need to worry about primarily depends upon both the sensitivity of the data you're protecting, but also what other security measures you have in place. A site that just gives a personalised weather forecast for a selected city obviously has less sensitive data than one which has your home address, mother's maiden name, date of birth and other info which could be used for identification purposes.
So here's the rub; a high entropy salt is still a bad salt if it's easily obtainable.
In the real world, storing a salt in the database (random or not) is probably less secure than using a constant salt and burying it away from private eyes in a file inaccessible via the web browser. Whilst a unique and high entropy salt is harder to guess, if you've allowed root login from any server on MySql and set the password to 'password' it doesn't really matter! Constrast how easy it is to crack the database versus getting a valid login to your server - which is possibly more difficult to do discretely as you can put fail2ban and a plethora of other attack vector watchers in place depending upon your setup.
You can combine the two approaches by storing the location of a file containing a user-specific salt in the database, rather than the salt itself. Whether having to crack both the file system and the database is warranted depends whether the sensitivity of the data you are trying to protect warrants this overhead.
Another, alternative, recommendation from security experts is to store the username in a separate database (and ideally different technology) to the password, and reference between the two using a UUID. E.g. use both MySQL and SQLite. This means that both databases have to be cracked (and is also why, to go down a separate rabbit hole for the sake of an example, you should not store user details and credit card numbers in the same database since one is of no use without the other).
Note that Algorithms like SHA-512 and Blowfish can return the salt as part of their hash. Be careful with these as if you store the complete hash you give away the algorithm, which means there's two less thing for the hackers to figure out (the salt also gives away the algorithm).
Make sure you enforce strong passwords and usernames, so dictionary attacks will fail; I know of dictionaries for all 6-alphanumeric combinations of username/ password entries for MD5 and I suspect that there are more than this available for all sorts of algorithms. With the explosion of low-cost cloud and CPGPU computing, the size and complexity of available dictionaries is going to explode.
Ultimately, the most secure way is never to programatically generate a salt but require a user to enter it along with their username and password over a SSL link (so can't be snooped), but never store it. This is the approach taken by credit card companies; i.e. the 3-digit CSV security key on your credit card which you have to enter each and every time you buy online, since it should never be stored in any database. If you really want to generate the salt, send it to them separately (e.g. via SMS message or Email) and still make them enter it manually each time. With this approach, although more secure, you need to contrast the complexity against whether users will just stop using the site as you've made it too difficult for them to be bothered with it.
All of the above still relies on the fact that you also have protection in place against session hijacking, cross-site scripting, etc., etc. The world's strongest password algorithm is irrelevant if all I need to do is to calculate a valid PHPSESSID for a logged-in user and hijack it!
I am not a security expert, but have read up on this as much as I reasonably can do. The fact that there are so many books on the subject indicates how big the answer to your question really is.
A couple of really great books you might like to try which I've found invaluable are;
Web Application Vulnerabilities Detect, Exploit, Prevent - ISBN-13: 978-1-59749-209-6
Preventing Web Attacks with Apache - ISBN-13: 978-0-321-32128-2
No, time() is not a good salt
It's best not to reinvent the wheel when it comes to authentication, but to answer your question, no. The problem with time():
It's predictable and it correlates to potentially discoverable things. These issues make it easier to cross-match different hashed results.
There aren't very many possible values. Since the high-order bits don't change, it's an even narrower salt than it first appears.
Using it repeats previous mistakes. If this app were the first one to use time() as a salt, at least it would require a new attack.
Yes.
It seems that a unix timestamp, stored in the user database as a "Member since" field going to be decent salt.
However, salt question is most negligible one.
There are much more important things you have to pay attention to:
Most likely not a password nor salt or hashing algorithm going to be weakest part of your site. Some lame file injection or XSS or CSRF surely is. So, don't make a too big deal of it.
Speaking of a true random string of 32 char long in the typical web-application is like speaking about 32-inch armored door in the wooden barn.
Speaking of passwords, most ever important thing is password complexity. With weak password no salt nor hashing algorithm, even super-ingenious-incredible-hard one, could help. It's a pain to ask users to use complex password, but without it everything else becomes a piece of crap.
So, your first concern should be password complexity. 12-16 characters of different case, including numbers and punctuation is a requirement.
As for the salt, I see no benefit in using time, as you have to store it along with other user data. Better use a email - it's random enough and you have it already anyway. Don't forget to rehash a password if user changes their email. it seems that unix timstamp going to be a decent salt, no need to use email or anything else.
Update
As I can see, many people still unable to get the point.
Like that guy from the comments, saying
Many users use weak passwords (we should educate them, or at least keep trying), but that is no excuse; they still deserve good security
They deserve, no doubt. But with weak password the mission. is. impossible.
If your password is weak, then no salt will protect it.
While salt is not that important to spend a 10-kilobyte text on the topic.
Salt is use to prevent rainbow attacks by breaking the match between the password and precomputed hash. So the main task for a salt is to be different for each user/password record. Quality of randomization of the salt doesn't matter much as long as the salt is different for different users.
the date when a member joins a forum/website is generally openly access able , which would be same as time() hence making your salt useless.
No! Never use the current time as the salt. You can use something like 'SecureRandom' in java to generate a random salt that is secure. Always use an unpredictable random number as the salt. Using time as the salt will help you to remove collisions only upto a certain extent(because two users can sypply the same passwords at the same time), but still make the passwords recoverable.
The user name should be sufficient enough and perhaps the registration time stamp, but you should store it somewhere in the database. Anyway every value you use to salt your password hash, should be stored some way, so you can recalculate the hash.
Is salting with user name + a time stamp secure enough? It should be. For cracking SHA512 Hashes normally Rainbow Tables are used. A user name + a time stamp should be a salt which is uniquq enough, so there is no way there is some Rainbow Table on the net which contains precalculated hashes with passwords, which are salted this way.
I am seeking advice on how to securely store passwords in MySQL using PHP.
Overlooking the limitations of PHP itself, I want to know more about salting, hashing, and encrypting these bad boys.
Obviously people will continue to use weak passwords unless forced to do otherwise, but it's how I am storing them that is important to me. My user's passwords are far more important to me than the database itself, and as such I want to keep them in such a way that it will be painstaking and monotonous for any script kiddie trying reverse. Obviously with due diligence just about anything can be defeated, but I wouldn't mind making this particularly bothersome.
There are two scenarios we are looking at.
The kiddie has a complete copy of the database.
The kiddie has a complete copy of the PHP used to craft the password, and the database.
Any and all advice on this topic is graciously appreciated.
Use bcrypt. If someone has the user table of your database, then they can use brute force/rainbow tables/etc to their heart's content. Even with salt, if you're using MD5 or some other fast-hashing algorithm (which aren't designed to solve this problem, by the way); it's just a matter of time before it can be cracked.
Any well-known and widely-supported hashing algorithm is going to have this same basic "flaw" (if you can call it that; it's really by definition). The difference is that bcrypt is slow as molasses when performing the hashing operation, rendering a brute force attack much less effective.
For an absolutely great discussion on the merits of bcrypt, the dangers of other approaches, and the difficulty of password security in general, read this thread. It has lots of comments by many people that are much more knowledgeable about this sort of thing than I am, and it should hopefully help you understand more of the issues at stake.
Assuming you're using username and password as authentication tokens you can safely store the following to ensure the data can't be compromised.
Username (in plaintext)
Salt (random string)
Salted Hash (sha1(username + salt + password))
Using the scheme, an attacker cannot use rainbow tables against you and the passwords are not recoverable by any (reasonable) means. (That is, as long as your attacker isn't the government)
Even though the attacker has the salt and hash pairs it's not possible to use rainbow tables because all the possible hashes will need to be computed anyway, using the salt that they've been given, so it's a brand new brute force attack for each user.
Even with the source code and attacker won't be able to get hold of the passwords because the strength/security is in the hashing algorithm, not your code.
Combine this with using bcrypt as per Donut's answer and you're really quite safe. That is:
Username (in plaintext)
Salt (random string)
Salted Hash (bcrypt(username + salt + password))
Taking advice from here, for added fun you can dynamically change your salt as well. For example, use different salts for usernames of different length, use the user's registration date as the salt. This makes it that even if someone DOES get to your database, they can't just re-generate the hash, they have to calculate a hash table for each salt that you used.
If your users are over the internet, OpenId would be one of your best options. http://openid.net/
If your users are on your network, can you do Integrated Security?
In other words.. do not store their passwords.
Usually "salted" passwords (like with bcrypt) mean that not the password itself is stored, but only something like
salt
hash(salt with password appended)
Now if the kiddie has your database (and of course, the code - there is no point in keeping the code secret), he/she can only guess passwords, calculate the salted hash, and compare. If the hash function is expensive (like bcrypt is), than guessing is expensive too.
It's simple
store(sha256("somesalt" + password));
And nobody will be able to reverse it :)
See also: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3897434/password-security-sha1-sha256-or-sha512