3 ms·
From where do you get the idea that the "OpenBSD hyenas" would ridicule you for finding a security vulnerability in OpenBSD? Seriously? One doesn't have to han
by marshray 15y ago
From where do you get the idea that the "OpenBSD hyenas" would ridicule you for finding a security vulnerability in OpenBSD?
Seriously? One doesn't have to hang around those lists long to see how they treat those they disagree with.
You can get advice about truncating SHA512 from Furguson and Schneier; that book is 5 years old.
Sure, but that wasn't written in the late 1990s when bcrypt was presented and we certainly can't expect the blogger to have read up on the modern advice. Bcrypt doesn't even use SHA-512, it uses the block cipher Blowfish in a suboptimal custom mode to construct its own 192-bit narrow-pipe hash function. When Microsoft rolled their own password hash functions with DES just a few years earlier (LanMan, NTLM) it was thoroughly pwned by Schneier, Mudge, Wagner, L0pht, etc. But you know this!
- tptacek 15y agoI'm not an OpenBSD fan, Marsh. I'm close to the opposite. And I'm calling BS on this. I'm sure the OpenBSD people aren't nice to you, but it's probably not because you found flaws in OpenBSD code. I wasn't being flippant; the only thing Theo ever fucked with me over was not finding enough bugs. As for the last part of your comment, we appear to be searching for reasons to disagree with each other, when in fact we agree that this finding has no impact on the security of bcrypt. Let's not find artificial reasons to disagree.
- marshray 15y agoYeah I've been off and on the OpenBSD lists a few times over the years and have said both really dumb stuff and insightful stuff. I'm not so much referring to any specific instance, just saying their reputation for being cranky and unwelcoming is well deserved. I was wrong about bcrypt being a 192-bit narrow-pipe hash. While some parts of it are, reading the paper again the real work happens in the key expansion function having an internal state size of 33344 bits.