Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember salts don't need to be secret to do their job. The goal is to change the algorithm slightly (by adding additional input) for each user. That means you can't mass-precompute (rainbow tables), and just look up what matches, you have to break each user individually. Your reasoning about how salts work is correct. There's also something called a pepper which is another additional bit of input data, that is only…
Please refer to my comment above. You can precompute a rainbow table if you know the username (trivial) and the method of hashing[1]. Whilst usernames as salts would increase security over no salt, it results in a potential exploit / vulnerability that would not exist if the salt was truly random. Hence, suggesting the use of usernames as salts is not wise. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerckhoffs%27s_principle
6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
331–340 of 547 posts
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#332They just tweeted this: https://twitter.com/LinkedIn/status/210356987576324096 - "Our team is currently looking into reports of stolen passwords. Stay tuned for more."
And a follow-up: "Our team continues to investigate, but at this time, we're still unable to confirm that any security breach has occurred. Stay tuned here." https://twitter.com/LinkedIn/status/210390233076875264
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#333Some observations on this file: 0. This is a file of SHA1 hashes of short strings (i.e. passwords). 1. There are 3,521,180 hashes that begin with 00000. I believe that these represent hashes that the hackers have already broken and they have marked them with 00000 to indicate that fact. Evidence for this is that the SHA1 hash of 'password' does not appear in the list, but the same hash with the first five characters…
Mine isn't in it.
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#334It is inexcusable that LinkedIn hasn't alerted their users yet.
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#335Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#336Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#337Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#338Earlier quoted context omitted.
To expand on that, to store passwords don't just use salt+sha1, or try to do your own nested sha1, just use bcrypt: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bcrypt
Could you explain what you mean with "nested sha1" - hashing it twice? How is this safer than sha1 + a good salt?
This additional slowdown is unlikely to be noticed by a user during an interactive login (hashing the password may take 1ms instead of 1us -- an imperceptible difference to a human) but it dramatically slows down the speed at which an attack can compute hashes to try and recover the password for a leaked hash. It also increases the amount of storage space required for (a naive implementation of) a rainbow table since the attacker would need to store the output for 1, 2, ..., n iterations of the hash function.
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#339"We were curious what would happen to our share price if our company did something incredibly stupid" The above comment might seem incredibly harsh, but really, there's no good excuse for a site this prominent to not have a salted, secure password hashing system. Even if they started with an unsalted password system, users can be migrated to the newer more secure system on next login. The only way I could regain resp…
In thinking about this, I wonder if in that scenario you'd even have to wait until next login. You could just use the weak hash as the input to your salted hash function and keep a flag of whether or not you need to 'pre-hash' the password before using your v2.0 salted hash. As users log in you could replace slowly replace the double hashed entries with single salted hash versions and flip the flag.
Re: 6.5 Million LinkedIn Password Hashes Leaked
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
fwiw, this could also be an elaborate hoax, given this facts. E.g. a list of simple password + combinations of the above simple password+"linkedin" variations.
My complex unique password is also on this list (full hash no 5 0's). So nope, not a hoax. Unbelievable/insulting they didn't even bother to salt.