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.
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 have a little doubt.
I'm not so expert in encryption or hashing but I know that the hash can have some collision, that is two different text inputs can give the same hash string.
So.. this means that (also remotely) two password can give the same hash and so one user can make a login with another password (because the hash is the same)?
Yes, it's mathematically improbable but possible.
Yes, and it is known to happen with poor hash functions (think crc32). Chances of it happening with modern hash functions are, indeed, practically zero. The chances of guessing the right password using some sort of dictionary attack are considerably higher.
It can happen, not likely. I use ripemd320 because as of when I started using it, it had never been hacked. Which equates to meaning it generates very unique hash codes.
It's not all that important because 25% of passwords can be guessed within 15 minutes. Less if you know the user's dogs, kids, and spouse names and birth dates.
The point is if someone does get your user database with hash codes it is easy to attempt a hack with a poor hashing algorithm.
The way to hack it is to generate a hash code for all the common passwords and see if it matches the stored hash.
It was stated by some government security agency years back that there was no known successful hack of this type when ripe320 was used.
It doesn't matter if an attacker can find collisions when hashing passwords. A user knowing multiple passwords which are valid is not a problem.
In fact for PBKDF2 and scrypt, which are both popular and recommended password hashes, finding collisions and second pre-images is easy, but you need quite a bit of imagination to come up with scenarios where this matters.
What matters is that:
Given a hash it's hard to figure out the password (first pre-image resistance)
Collisions are rare enough so they don't reduce password entropy much. Any decent hash with at least 128 bits of output fulfills this one.
It's expensive to compute, slowing down password guessing attacks. This means you can't
It's salted, preventing multi target attacks.
See How to securely hash passwords? on security.se for details.
Currently I'm just fooling around with PHP, but I came across an idea I want to expand on and need to know how secure it is in your opinion, and how I can improve it to make it acceptable for practical use.
This is how I store the passwords in the database:
plain text password -> hash password (I use whirlpool, but any method will practically work)->
shuffle/scramble the hashed password (with the str_shuffle() function).
I store the users password in the database like so, to make sure if the database is compromised, it would make it impossible for the attacker to reverse the broken password hash inside the database. (Because how can you reverse in a sense, random text that use to be a hash? - Although I'm sure you can create a list of possibilities by comparing a list of hashes that share the same chars.)
The way I check if the users password they entered on the login form is correct (compared to the broken hash in the database) is by counting the individual letters+numbers (a-f & 0-9) in both strings/passwords , and see if they match up, and if they do, I assume they're correctly logged in.
And again, I want to know how secure this is in your opinion, and how can I improve it to make it acceptable for practical use. (If possible.)
& I would also like to try my best to avoid a "reversible" hash. (i.e the idea of creating my own way of ensuring the passwords match, I want to make it more of an A best guess Assumption, to completely help ensure it will be impossible for an attacker to reverse the passwords in the database.
& Yes I know this is stupid because it most likely causes more security flaws rather then helps fix them. But this is just something I'm fooling around with, and maybe hope to make it practical.
OTHER INFO:
1) Passwords are stored with unique salts (so not 1 account shares the same salt)
2) Password salts are always changing (Each time a Successful Login happens with a users account, it will change the users salt in the database. I do this to change the hash in the datbase, causing a password collision to be less frequent (hopefully) & also to prevent unwanted users from using the same incorrect password multiple times to login (If they manage to come across one, only way to achieve this is by bruteforce or 'guessing' which any login system is vulnerable to).
When I say password collision, I mean the slightest chance that the word "hello" & "blue" share the same exact char count (as I explained, I count the individual chars + numbers, and compare them, to ASSUME its the correct password.)
3) I will also MAYBE keep the first 3chars/numbers of the hashed password unaffectedd by the str_shuffle, to also help ensure the passswords are correct. (By creating 2 checks, 1) check if both strings share the same FIRST 3 CHARS/Numbers & 2) Then compare the count of chars in each string. (Hoping to make password collisions, again, less frequent).
4) Obviously other security measures will be added (i.e max login attempts, captcha , etc.. to help protect against automated bruteforcing, to make it harder for a hacker to find a possible password or the real password.
I have made a successful PoC of this, and it works like a charm, although I have yet to test the PoC against a Dictionary Attack / Brute Force Attack, to see the chances of password collisions. & How frequent they are.
If I stated a lot of 'useless' information, ignore it. I'm just trying my best to explain this reasonably.
This seems terribly ineffective and insecure to me.
Most notably: Collisions. You mentioned that already in Other Info.
Just checking for the count of characters in the hashed & scrambled lets collision probability go through the roof. You enable one password to be also valid for all permutations of its hash. Considering the length of 128 characters in a whirlpool hash, this is a veeery large number.
So, basically, by allowing this, you allow a would-be bruteforcer to check many many thousand passwords at once, by entering a single one.
They will not gain permanent access to the system, since you said you alter the hash after each login, but the probability that they gain access ONCE is increased substantially.
Concerning the altered salt... how do you do that? I can't think of a way unless you apply the salt after hashing instead of before, which is not how a Salt works in hashing.
If you want to make it more secure then just use multiple hash iterations. Store the hashed password and the number of hash iterations. Every time the user logs in hash the hash again, store it, and increase the iteration count. This will change the stored hash sufficiently without introducing too many cryptographic weaknesses.
Your shuffling scheme will make the password less secure. Comparing the number of instances of letter and numbers after a shuffle increases the chance of two people having the same password value (collision, as you said).
The re-salting is something you could use. Each time the user successfully logs in, you can re-salt the password and save it again. This could be even better if you modified the PHP password procedure to use a hi-res time value, increasing the unique-ness. Essentially you're continuously rotating the salt of the password. You would have to save the clear password, compare its hash to the saved one, re-salt and hash the clear password and save again.
The output of a cryptographically strong hashing function is for all intents and purposes already pseudo-random. Attempting to add entropy by scrambling it does nothing. It does nothing to make the hash less "reversible", since the only way to "reverse" a hash is by choosing an input, hashing it, comparing it with the hash; that's the same thing you have to do when logging the user in, it's the same thing an attacker has to do, changing the comparison algorithm does not change this basic operation. (As others have pointed out, your weakened comparison algorithm actually aids an attacker.)
The accepted way to deal with this problem is already sufficient:
Make sure your input is unique by salting it with (pseudo) random noise, this forces an attacker to do actual brute force hashing.
Choose a hash that is slow (preferably bcrypt or scrypt, with a high enough cost factor that makes it feasible for you to do once, but infeasible for an attacker to do billions of times), this makes it computationally infeasible for an attacker to brute force a hash in his life time.
If both steps are done correctly, it's already infeasible to "reverse" a hash. No additional mind games needed.
Don't fiddle around with your idea any longer. It is insecure.
There are only about two ways for password security that provide a sufficient level of resistance against tampering:
Use a hardware security module executing something like HMAC-SHA1. The module is external hardware, the outside world does not know the internal secret (only available by physical access to the module) inside the module, and without that module the generated hashes will never be reconstructed. Being dedicated hardware with a "fast" hashing algorithm makes this a viable solution for lot's of password checks. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash-based_message_authentication_code for details.
Use very slow hashing algorithm. Things like "scrypt" or "bcrypt" will execute very slowly, thus hindering the fast bruteforce scan of list of passwords against a list of known hashes. PHP only has support for "bcrypt" at this time.
You may wonder why you should use external hardware encapsulating a secret. Simple: Anything that is accessible from the machine that is doing the hash can be stolen. Stealing the secret is like using the same salt (or none at all) for all keys: You end up "only" having a very fast hash algorithm with every other component known, and can start bruteforcing passwords right away.
So if there is no dedicated hardware, the only other option is a slow password hash algorithm.
There is a solution for PHP: password_compat is a library that reimplements the PHP password hash API for versions before PHP 5.5. If you are already using 5.5, you simply use these functions.
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.