Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

15

The XOR is indeed meant as a protection against hypothetical short cycles. For a given password P, the sequence of Ui should make a "rho" structure: at some point in the sequence, a cycle is entered. For a n-bit hash function and random password, on average, there will be a single "big" cycle of size about 2n/2 and for almost all possible salt values, that ...


14

The best you can hope for is the following: You derive the password into a "big enough" (e.g. 128 bits) secret key $K$ with a Key Derivation Function like PBKDF2. There are some details to be aware of (see below). You use the secret key $K$ as seed for a Pseudorandom Number Generator. The PRNG is deterministic (same seed implies same output sequence) and ...


13

Both PBKDF2 and scrypt are key derivation functions (KDFs) that implement key stretching by being deliberately slow to compute and, in particular, by having an adjustable parameter to control the slowness. The difference is that scrypt is also designed to require a large (and adjustable) amount of memory to compute efficiently. The purpose of this is to ...


10

What you suggest is valid. Here is a way to show it: In a fully implemented signature system (things are similar for asymmetric encryption), there are three modules: a key pair generator, which produces a pseudo-random key pair; a signature generator, which uses the private key to produce a signature over some piece of data; a signature verifier, which ...


8

You can use TLS 1.0 as guidance: it is the direct successor of SSL 3.0, so many things are quite similar, and in some respects TLS 1.0 is a bit clearer. In section 6.3 you will find the key generation process, with the exact sentence: To generate the key material, compute [...] until enough output has been generated. Then the key_block is ...


8

For the purpose of key diversification (that is, assigning a unique key per device), a true master_key is customary; that is, one with plenty of entropy (like, 128 bits or more random bits). Edit: that's now stated in the question. With that caveat, yes, PBKDF2(password=master_key, salt=serial_number, rounds=1000, dkLen=16)is appropriate to generate one ...


8

It looks like, given your adversary model, things should be secure. HMAC as a randomness extractor has been shown to be good, especially when we can assume the hash function is collision resistant. That paper also has some results which tell how you could guard against the collision resistance being broken (basically use a hash function with larger output ...


7

Short answer: just truncate, it's fine. Long answer: you want a Key Derivation Function. A KDF turns an arbitrary-sized input (the shared secret obtained from SRP) into a configurable sequence of bytes, which you can split into as many sub-sequences as you need for symmetric cryptography. For instance, SSL/TLS defines a KDF (it calls it "PRF"; see section ...


7

@D.W. is probably closest to the real reason (this was fifteen years ago, so things get a bit hazy), there was some concern about short cycles, and it was effectively free - you're already iterating the hashing deliberately to slow things down so speed isn't an issue - so why not do it? You've also got to remember the historic context, when replacements for ...


7

Yes, this is a fine approach. This sort of technique is known as "key separation". Since your master key is a cryptographically secure key, you do not need to use a large iteration count. Also, you could use any PRF, in place of PBKDF2. (The iteration count is normally used if you are applying PBKDF2 to a passphrase, instead of a cryptographically secure ...


7

I'd use HKDF's "expand" step to generate multiple keys from one masterkey. Use PBKDF2 to derive that masterkey from the password and salt. i.e. replace the "extract" step of HKDF with PBKDF2. //Extract MasterKey = PBKDF2(salt, password, iterations) //Expand AES-Key = HMAC(MasterKey, "AES-Key" | 0x01) MAC-Key = HMAC(MasterKey, "MAC-Key" | 0x01) (where | ...


7

If you want key diversification with a key as input, you are better off using a key based key derivation function (KBKDF) over a password based key derivation function (PBKDF). Difference is that KBKDF requires a key with high entropy. This also means that it does not require a salt nor an iteration count. It does however require context specific data for ...


7

There is nothing related to passwords in AES. AES uses 128-bit keys, i.e. sequences of 128 bits. How you come up with such a key is out of scope of AES. In some contexts, you want to generate these 128 bits in a deterministic way from a password (and possibly some publicly known contextual data, like a "salt"); this is a job for password hashing. In other ...


6

Let's start with a general secure KDF construction, as follows. Let $F(k,x) \rightarrow \{0,1\}^n$ be a secure PRF. Then choose $L$ such that $L \times n$ provides as many output bits as you need for all of your generated keys. Let $S$ be your original secret key/entropy. Generate the following string: $KDF(S,N,L) := F(S, C || 0) || F(S, N || 1) || ... || ...


6

In my practice (Smart Cards, often using DES and increasingly AES) Key Expansion is often used to designate production of subkeys in a block cipher. This process is often a mere bit extraction, as part of the algorithm's Key Schedule. Key Diversification is, almost exclusively, the process of producing a device key from its serial number (or other ...


6

As mikeazo notes, PBKDF2 supports the generation of arbitrary amounts of key data. It accomplishes this simply by appending a running counter to the salt and rerunning the key derivation process to generate new output blocks, so there's no obvious reason why you couldn't apply the same construction to bcrypt. The scrypt KDF also supports arbitrary-length ...


6

KDF must produce results that have certain randomness properties, and be very difficult to reverse. Password hashes only need to satisfy the property "difficult to reverse", without randomness requirements. This is why all KDFs work as password hashes but not the other way around.


5

You are using a Vernam-encryption (simple XOR), as for the one-time pad. The general principle for Vernam is that it is perfectly secure as long as you never reuse the same key for more than one message, and gets utterly broken as soon as it is reused even once (this is the "two-time pad"). The key here is the hashed password, the message the key. If one ...


5

If the keys have constant, known length, I'd concatenate them, and then apply SHA256. If they have variable length, applying some separation mechanism might be useful. Truncating hash functions works well. If the original hash function is good, a truncated hash function has the same properties, albeit at a correspondingly lower security level. Truncating ...


5

PBKDF1 as specified in PKCS#5 and RFC 2898 provides Key Derivation and Key Strengthening. The parameters of the function are a hash function (such as SHA-1), a password, a salt (sometimes called nonce, depending on context), an iteration count and the length of the derived key to be returned. The standard PBKDF1 will just calculate the hash of password ...


5

A common approach is to encrypt the private key with a symmetric key derived from a pass phrase. This will be as secure as the chosen pass phrase. I'd suggest sticking with this approach; its conventionality makes it "simpler" than a solution that hasn't been studied well.


5

To be honest, there's no good reason why the XOR is needed. My suspicion is that, most likely, the designers included it because they thought, "hey, why not? it can't hurt". But if the designers had left out the XOR, everything would have been just fine. In particular, if PRF() is a secure pseudorandom function, and if we stick with typical parameters, ...


5

First, realize that PBKDF2 is PKCS #5 is RFC 2898, i.e. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2898.txt It's essentially an algorithm to securely hash a password as many times as you want, with whatever hash you want. OWASP recommends hashing the password at least 64,000 times in 2012, and doubling that every two years, per ...


5

I am familiar with the RC4 related key attacks; I can say that if you publish the nonce, and use any of the first 256 bytes of the RC4 keystream, that you are vulnerable to those attacks. These attacks exploit a correlation between specific bytes of the RC4 key, and the initial output values; with your approach, the attackers can guess what (say) byte 2 of ...


5

The same key is indeed used in EAX to key both the CTR mode and the underlying OMAC (which is actually used in 3 distinct phases: randomising the CTR nonce, authenticating the Additional Authenticated Data, and authenticating the Ciphertext). This is explicitly acknowledged in the security proof. Where EAX differs from a naive reuse of the key is that it ...


5

The shared secret generated by the Diffie–Hellman key exchange is a random element of the subgroup of the multiplicative group modulo $p$ generated by $g$. In particular, for $g$ and $p$ chosen as specified in RFC 2631 section 2.2, i.e. so that $p = jq+1$, where $q$ and $p$ are both prime, $j$ is a small number (often 2, making $p$ as safe prime) and $g$ ...


5

If I understand correctly, you want a function that for each input string $p$ assigns a permutation over an alphabet $L$. If the number of elements in $L$ is small enough, the permutation set $P(L)$ will be enumerable. More precisely, $|P(L)| = |L|!$. There exists a surjective function $f:\{0,1\}^k \to P(L)$ that for each bit string $s$ of length $k$ ...


5

I agree with the comments that SHA-256 should be fine here. However, if you already use HMAC-SHA-256 for PBKDF2, you could use HKDF Expand, which despite its name is defined even for output lengths shorter than input. In your case the output would be simply: $$\operatorname{HMAC-SHA-256}(\text{key}, \text{info} || \text{0x01}),$$ where 'info' is an ...


4

That's a reasonable solution if you can't use a random salt. If you personalize your hash function for your application, then the salt is globally unique for each user. (e.g. use sitename||username as salt) The only salt reuse happening is that older passwords of the same user have the same salt. But that's a very minor issue. I disagree with Polynomial who ...


4

I agree with you. The XOR seems utterly pointless. A short cycle in the hash chain seems no more likely nor more unlikely than a short cycle in the hash/XOR chain. If one can degenerate into a sequence where additional iterations don't change the value, so can the other. If one can't, neither can the other.



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible