This was a case where there was a tradeoff between correctness and
speed. Previously EmptyQuerySet (the class used by .none() internally)
wasn't a real QuerySet class. This caused a couple of problems
(subclassing and no error checking at least). Now .none() just generates
a WhereNode for the q
Hi,
there are a few things which worry me about this patch (aside from the note
from charettes). You write "and the DoS attack vector is avoided" which is
not true, hashing functions are by design CPU-intensive so you are not
avoiding DoS, even if hashing now consistently takes less (for short
I guess it's related to a2396a4c8f[1] and #19184[2].
[1]
https://github.com/django/django/commit/a2396a4c8f2ccd7f91adee6d8c2e9c31f13f0e3f
[2] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/19184
Le dimanche 15 septembre 2013 20:05:43 UTC-4, Curtis Maloney a écrit :
>
> So what's going on here:
>
> Runnin
So what's going on here:
Running 'query_none' benchmark ...
Min: 0.44 -> 0.000262: 5.9674x slower
Avg: 0.47 -> 0.000290: 6.1906x slower
Significant (t=-12.805744)
Stddev: 0.1 -> 0.00013: 14.5148x larger (N = 50)
--
Curtis
On 15 September 2013 16:31, Anssi Kääriäinen wrote:
> On Su
On Sun, 2013-09-15 at 18:23 +0200, Aymeric Augustin wrote:
> On 15 sept. 2013, at 17:57, Simon Kern wrote:
>
> > Yes but management commands should be irrelevant for django-secure
>
> Well, in this case, I have a backup argument :)
>
> There's a non-negligible number of people serving webs
Submitted patch:
https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/21105#comment:1
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 10:09:55 PM UTC+3, Donald Stufft wrote:
>
>
> On Sep 15, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Florian Apolloner
> >
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ram,
>
> On Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:34:03 PM UTC+2, Ram Rachum wrote:
>>
>>
On Sep 15, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Florian Apolloner wrote:
> Hi Ram,
>
> On Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:34:03 PM UTC+2, Ram Rachum wrote:
> Florian, I'm not sure that you read my message carefully enough. I'm not
> proposing to reduce the time that PBKDF2 takes to hash.
>
> By replacing the pas
Hi Ram,
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 12:34:03 PM UTC+2, Ram Rachum wrote:
>
> Florian, I'm not sure that you read my message carefully enough. I'm *not
> *proposing to reduce the time that PBKDF2 takes to hash.
>
By replacing the password with a hash before running it through PBKDF2 you
are r
On 15 sept. 2013, at 20:07, Michael Manfre wrote:
> No amount of code or docs will fix all of the stupid things people do.
>
Of course, but that isn't a sufficient reason for disabling the security
checks. The point of django-secure is to help users with limited knowledge of
security best pract
On Sep 15, 2013 12:23 PM, "Aymeric Augustin" <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
>
> On 15 sept. 2013, at 17:57, Simon Kern wrote:
>
> > Yes but management commands should be irrelevant for django-secure
>
> Well, in this case, I have a backup argument :)
>
> There's a non-negligible
On 15 sept. 2013, at 17:57, Simon Kern wrote:
> Yes but management commands should be irrelevant for django-secure
Well, in this case, I have a backup argument :)
There's a non-negligible number of people serving websites in production with
./manage.py runserver, in spite of all the warnin
Yes but management commands should be irrelevant for django-secure
Am 15.09.13 17:52, schrieb Aymeric Augustin:
> On 15 sept. 2013, at 16:40, Simon K. wrote:
>
>> But in production the entry point is the wsgi.py file, isn't it?
> It's the main entry point in production, but not the only one;
On 15 sept. 2013, at 16:40, Simon K. wrote:
> But in production the entry point is the wsgi.py file, isn't it?
It's the main entry point in production, but not the only one; manage.py /
django-admin.py is still used to run management commands.
--
Aymeric.
--
You received this message be
Am Mittwoch, 17. Juli 2013 10:20:47 UTC+2 schrieb Russell Keith-Magee:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Christopher Medrela
>
> > wrote:
>
>> Progress: I've implemented manager checks.
>>
>> This API allows us to register, among other things, app-specific checks.
>> But
>> it's not necessa
We'd want to use SHA256 but that's an OK thing to do AFAIK. I wouldn't agree to
it in a security patch because it breaks backwards compatibility in a much
larger way than the patch we did does.
In fact we already do this with the bcrypt hasher in Django 1.6+ to solve a
password truncation issue
Florian, I'm not sure that you read my message carefully enough. I'm *not
*proposing
to reduce the time that PBKDF2 takes to hash. I'm proposing to keep that
time just as long, but make it independent on the password length.
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 1:12:31 PM UTC+3, Florian Apolloner wrot
On Sunday, September 15, 2013 11:45:29 AM UTC+2, Ram Rachum wrote:
> What if instead of calculating the PBKDF2 hash of the password, we'll
> calculate the PBKDF2 hash of its SHA1 hash? Then the time of checking
> passwords wouldn't depend on their length, and we wouldn't even have to
> place
Thanks Curtis!
I thought about my idea and realized it makes a brute-force attack easier,
and we'd have to make the hashing stronger to compensate... Making the
computation time longer for the real users logging in... So yeah, it won't
help.
But then I had another idea. So PBKDF2 takes a longe
Actually, you'd just speed up their attack, since most failed attempts
would be quicker than others.
If you look in the crypto utils, you'll see a "constant time compare" ...
this is a common thing in crypto circles to avoid leaking "how close" the
guess was by how quickly the mismatch was found.
Hi guys,
I just saw the new release announcement and I had an idea.
What if, in addition to sorting the hard to compute hash for every password, we
will also store the sha 1 hash of the first 5 characters ofthe password's sha1
hash? Wouldn't this allow us to quickly rule out 99% of passwords, t
20 matches
Mail list logo
