Linked by Howard Fosdick on Sat 10th Nov 2012 07:28 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 542154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"
I'm not even trying to argue anything.
I'm not even trying to argue anything.
to be honest, I'm not convinced that you're now just trolling me. "
Well on the one hand you talk about the mathematical strength of password hashes, but then switch to practical considerations when talking about the weakness of passphrases.
It's almost a useless comparison. You can't talk about how passphrases are weak because the crackers do a massive spray-and-pray but then say password hashes are strong if we don't take into account similar spray-and-pray.
Let's just call it reciprocated trolling.





Member since:
2007-03-26
You can't unless salts like that get leaked. They never have.
This is another example how why you need to read up on the subject. It's not as simple as you state there. There's a number of different ways a salt can be incorporated and each method would create a completely different and incompatible result.
They wouldn't need to reverse engineer. They could figure out the most popular generators and get those generators do the work of generating. All they will have to do is to get all the output variants and try it. They could even just use the web service you linked to, feed in its guesses, then scrape the returned webpage for the generated hashes.
That's exactly what I was discussing what I said "reverse engineer".
Given the massive range of variables involved, what you're describing would be the least accurate password attack routine to target the smallest subset of passwords (as not everyone currently employs this method). Maybe if 10 years from now everyone used my method, then you'd have a point - after all, security is an ever evolving fight. However in the current here and now, trying to identify which routine created the hash and then what the input values were for that is such an impracticality that brute force attacks are much more efficient. Thus making such hashes a reliable password generator.
As always, things might change in later years (just as how passphrases were best practices in security just a few years previously). But at the moment, what I'm recommending is a decent solution
I'm not even trying to argue anything.
to be honest, I'm not convinced that you're now just trolling me.
Edited 2012-11-12 15:47 UTC