4 ms·
I'm curious what the attack is that makes that easier to crack than the Gawker way. (I'm sure you're right, I just didn't know that it would be easier.)
by Xk 16y ago
I'm curious what the attack is that makes that easier to crack than the Gawker way. (I'm sure you're right, I just didn't know that it would be easier.)
- tptacek 16y agoSHA1 might (I think it is, but I'm not sure) be faster than DES; among other differences, DES crypt(3) has to run the DES key schedule before producing a hash. Data slips through SHA1 like a greased seal.
- Xk 16y agoAh, alright. I was thinking there was some kind of length-extension weakness (which doesn't apply here, which is why I was confused) or some other attack in the cryptographic sense. Thanks.
- tptacek 16y agoSHA1(salt || password) does have a length-extension property; you can easily compute SHA1(salt || password || junk || arbitrary-data) for any given hash. That's not very useful for password hashes, but is devastating for the kinds of SHA1-based authentication schemes that people who write their own password hashes seem to come up with.
- Xk 16y agoYeah, by "doesn't apply" I meant "that's not very useful for password hashes".
- bhousel 16y agoLooks like you're right.. these benchmarks show SHA1 about 5x faster than DES: http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html
- getsat 16y agoA machine with a few GPUs can compute hundreds of millions of SHA1 hashes per second. http://www.win.tue.nl/cccc/sha-1-challenge.html http://www.win.tue.nl/cccc/sha-1-challenge.html
- ewams 16y agoOr go commercial: http://www.digitalintelligence.com/products/rack-a-tacc/ http://www.digitalintelligence.com/products/rack-a-tacc/