Re: OT: password encryption (salt theory)
От | David F. Skoll |
---|---|
Тема | Re: OT: password encryption (salt theory) |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.LNX.4.44.0208212215480.31571-100000@shishi.roaringpenguin.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: OT: password encryption (salt theory) (Tim Ellis <Tim.Ellis@gamet.com>) |
Список | pgsql-admin |
On Wed, 21 Aug 2002, Tim Ellis wrote: > Of course. I argue everything does. Ah, here's what I meant by a dictionary attack: You precompute (offline) encrypted versions of your dictionary. This can be very slow; doesn't matter. You just burn a CD or DVD with a database mapping encrypted -> cleartext. It's this precomputation attack which a salt thwarts. A salt makes it impractical to build up a dictionary of encrypted -> cleartext mappings, because a given cleartext has millions of encrypted equivalents. > No matter how you obfuscate it, unless you can somehow turn it into a > O(x^n) problem, you're prone to dictionary attacks. A dictionary attack as I understood it means the kind of precomputed encrypted-to-cleartext lookup table I described above. If you do your mapping offline, you have the luxury of using an enormous set of possible passwords with no computational penalty when you actually carry out the attack. -- David.
В списке pgsql-admin по дате отправления: