On Wed Jun 27 12:32 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
because at the moment i do not understand how salt stored in the hash itself
makes hash more
secure than an unsalted one.
a) In terms of 'effort' to break many passwords, there's a benefit to the salt
stored in the hash itself.
It's not 'more
hi,
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron jbo...@openmv.com wrote:
On Wed Jun 27 12:32 PM, Arvids Godjuks wrote:
a) In terms of 'effort' to break many passwords, there's a benefit to the
salt stored in the hash itself.
It's not 'more secure' but 'better/recommended' since the
hi Anthony!
On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
I've added a pair of new functions to the RFC and implementation:
password_needs_rehash($hash, $algo, array $options = array())
Not totally convinced about that one. I would prefer a password_rehash
Pierre,
I've added a pair of new functions to the RFC and implementation:
password_needs_rehash($hash, $algo, array $options = array())
Not totally convinced about that one.
I'm not either. That's why I added the discussion point around it. I can
see it going either way.
I would
I've added a pair of new functions to the RFC and implementation:
password_needs_rehash($hash, $algo, array $options = array())
and
password_get_info($hash)
both are reasonably similar and there's a fair bit of overlap. Considering
that password_needs_rehash can be implemented easily in
hi!
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if not for an ini parameter, what way would you suggest to alter
the default bcrypt cost? (seriously, I'm open to suggestions)...
Simply by not allowing to change it. If one does not like it, it can
pass the
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 10:42 AM, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com wrote:
hi!
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:23 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, if not for an ini parameter, what way would you suggest to alter
the default bcrypt cost? (seriously, I'm open to suggestions)...
Pierre,
Simply by not allowing to change it. If one does not like it, it can
pass the option value as he wishes.
An ini setting for that sounds wrong to me.
Alright. I've pulled the ini option from the fork, and have updated
the RFC to the same...
Anthony
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime
Pierre,
Getting back to the PASSWORD_DEFAULT discussion...
I know you didn't like PASSWORD_MOST_SECURE. So what about keeping
PASSWORD_DEFAULT as a moving target, documented, and just making the
second parameter (algo) to password_hash required? That way users
could choose between
hi Anthony,
On Tue, Jul 3, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Pierre,
Getting back to the PASSWORD_DEFAULT discussion...
I know you didn't like PASSWORD_MOST_SECURE. So what about keeping
PASSWORD_DEFAULT as a moving target, documented, and just making the
second
Pierre,
I know you didn't like PASSWORD_MOST_SECURE. So what about keeping
PASSWORD_DEFAULT as a moving target, documented, and just making the
second parameter (algo) to password_hash required? That way users
could choose between PASSWORD_BCRYPT and PASSWORD_DEFAULT.
That way, over time,
Richard,
There is also the case of an app that simple shouldn't run with the
single default, but could pick and choose suitable algorithm from a
list of defaults, while still honoring whatever is in the .ini file
instead of going rogue with some other algorithm.
I disagree there. I think
On 06/27/2012 07:16 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Arvids,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
I personally think that using PASSWORD_DEFAULT for algorythm by default is a
bad idea. This should be defined by user in the code. Even worse if it
On 06/26/2012 08:25 AM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Hello All,
I've taken the conversation of the previous simplified password
hashing API, and generated a patch and draft RFC for it. The patch
isn't ready yet (needs review, cleanup and testing), but it's a start.
Chris,
Can you update the RFC (aka future documentation) and make this obvious
to an end user?
I just made an update (in the behavior sections). Let me know if
additional clarification is needed.
I think PASSWORD_BCRYPT should be an ordinal value, which the new
library maps to 2y when
On 07/02/2012 01:55 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Chris,
Can you update the RFC (aka future documentation) and make this obvious
to an end user?
I just made an update (in the behavior sections). Let me know if
additional clarification is needed.
To be honest, a note next to PASSWORD_DEFAULT
Chris,
To be honest, a note next to PASSWORD_DEFAULT would be good too.
Ok, I'll add that in shortly.
The API of password_make_salt() seems restrictive. What if other
options are needed in future?
Can you give any examples of what options would be needed in the
future, or how you would
hi Anthony,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't looked at your patch. But if it has to call another
PHP_FuNCTION then it's not good. crypt implementation should be
accessible via C.
I've refactored crypt() slightly to expose a PHP_API
hi,
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:03 AM, Ángel González keis...@gmail.com wrote:
Precisely the point of such constant is to allow the applications to
magically
Right, but not a default argument, which is bad in this case, for the
reasons explained earlier.
Obviously, any such bump -which I
Hi Anthony!
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Hrm. Well, then I guess I could re-implement against crypt internally.
That would take either a slight re-implementation of the crypt()
internals, or slight refactoring of the PHP_FUNCTION(crypt) function
On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 22:00 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
Johannes,
Some comments on the error behavior part:
E_WARNING - When CRYPT is not included in core (was disabled
compile-time, or is listed in disabled_functions declaration)
Disabling a different function should have
Johannes,
I haven't looked at your patch. But if it has to call another
PHP_FuNCTION then it's not good. crypt implementation should be
accessible via C.
I've refactored crypt() slightly to expose a PHP_API crypt_execute()
function that does just about everything except the argument parsing /
Hi, Anthony
Some questions coming up in my mind by reading this RFC:
* Will the value of the constant *PASSWORD_DEFAULT* remain unchanged
forever? Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when
trying to port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
* Is this a native version
hi!
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Simon Schick simonsimc...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi, Anthony
Some questions coming up in my mind by reading this RFC:
* Will the value of the constant *PASSWORD_DEFAULT* remain unchanged
forever? Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when
Simon,
* Will the value of the constant PASSWORD_DEFAULT remain unchanged forever?
Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when trying to
port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
No. That's why it's a separate constant. As newer, stronger hashing
options become
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com wrote:
Simon,
* Will the value of the constant PASSWORD_DEFAULT remain unchanged forever?
Otherwise this lib, in my opinion, can cause big problems when trying to
port an existing system to a newer PHP-version.
the
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:50 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
That's exactly what I meant, having a changing default in this may
force code change during php updates. I'm not in favour of having such
default.
This would not require any code changes after updates.
As I
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 1:49 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 13:37:50 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
That's exactly what I meant, having a changing default in this may
force code change during php updates. I'm not in favour of
Pierre,
As I understand, hashes computed with the old default method could still be
checked without any modification as the hash itself stores information about
the method.
That's only about one relatively simple use case where only PHP would
be involved or crypt-like implemenation. For any
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
escreveu:
Actually, now that I'm talking that out, perhaps the way to do it
would be to specify the default algorithm in a php.ini parameter
instead of the constant? That way the API can stay the same, but gives
people
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara ircmax...@gmail.com
escreveu:
Actually, now that I'm talking that out, perhaps the way to do it
would be to specify the default algorithm in a php.ini
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:43:35 +0200, Pierre Joye pierre@gmail.com
escreveu:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt
wrote:
Em Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:24:39 +0200, Anthony Ferrara
ircmax...@gmail.com escreveu:
I don't see any advantage in adding complexity
Pierre,
Back then MD5 alone was all nice and shiny. So no, it is not possible
to be forward compatible.
By forward compatible, if you mean able to support any new algo, I
think this is forward compatible. The options array allows for new
implementations to implement whatever options they need.
Hello.
I personally think that using PASSWORD_DEFAULT for algorythm by default is
a bad idea. This should be defined by user in the code. Even worse if it is
defined by .ini setting - deploy to a remote server and realize that there
is a different .ini default that messes up everything. Lessons
Arvids,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello.
I personally think that using PASSWORD_DEFAULT for algorythm by default is a
bad idea. This should be defined by user in the code. Even worse if it is
defined by .ini setting - deploy to a remote
hi,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Gustavo Lopes glo...@nebm.ist.utl.pt wrote:
You described why people *may* have to, depending on the circumstances --
for instance, when interoperability in mixed environments is required. No
one is saying that relying on a default value is appropriate in
On that note I have only one request - please point me to the good article
that describes how this thing works (I would prefer one that at least tries
to explain in simple words) because at the moment i do not understand how
salt stored in the hash itself makes hash more secure than an unsalted
Hi,
On Tue, 2012-06-26 at 11:25 -0400, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/password_hash
Some comments on the error behavior part:
E_WARNING - When CRYPT is not included in core (was disabled
compile-time, or is listed in disabled_functions declaration)
Disabling a
On 27/06/12 18:13, Pierre Joye wrote:
Changing default value forces code change if you have to keep a given
hash, for one obvious side effect.
If you disagree or does not like the idea, that's all fine, but you
can't really say that it is not an argument (nothing to justify, this
is a draft
Arvids,
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:32 PM, Arvids Godjuks
arvids.godj...@gmail.com wrote:
On that note I have only one request - please point me to the good article
that describes how this thing works (I would prefer one that at least tries
to explain in simple words) because at the moment i do
Johannes,
Some comments on the error behavior part:
E_WARNING - When CRYPT is not included in core (was disabled
compile-time, or is listed in disabled_functions declaration)
Disabling a different function should have no effect. This is not
intuitive. If crypt is a dependency and is
Pierre,
No, it is exactly one example out of many where changing values are a
real pain to deal with over the years. We should not have one.
While I completely see your point (and don't disagree with it in
isolation), I also see the counter point of making it easy for people
to use. Knowing
42 matches
Mail list logo
