On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Chris Anderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > >>>>> > >>>> Not really since salt is available and hash is only sha1. I think we > >>>> could make it harder but I agree with a strong encryption we don't > >>>> need to hide them. > > > > I'd be happy if someone can work out a stronger cryptographic > > solution. I don't think that there's much we can do to make brute > > force password guessing harder (aside from hiding the user's db, which > > we should do), but I'd be happy to be shown otherwise. > > Maybe we could start by using sha256. or more. I will have a look on > what could be done about it. > > I am just jumping in late here, so forgive me if this has been discussed. What about using bcrypt? Which is *designed* to be a slow hashing algorithm so that you dramatically reduce the ability to conduct brute force attacks. sha1, sha256, etc are designed to be fast, which if you gain access to the raw hashes is a bad thing. The idea is to make brute force attacks as computationally expensive as possible, while not impeding normal usage. for general context see : http://bit.ly/7nR09X http://bit.ly/91a05S And it seems like Adam K. has brought this up before as an option: http://bit.ly/7nxlA1
