# Do I need to sanitize user input to scrypt, or to PBKDF's in general?

I'd like to allow the user to supply a password as input to some PBKDF, which I will use to construct a key for file encryption (currently using aes-256-ctr. It may change as I learn more).

I am considering using scrypt. Do I need to do any escaping, sanitization, or other checks on the user input I will pass to scrypt?

More generally, do PBKDF's in general require any safety checks on user supplied input to them?

• In general you do not need to sanitize or safety check anything unless there is a specific reason... but a lot of those specific reasons do exist, so it's good to assume you do until shown otherwise. Sep 2 at 10:51

No, you do not need to do escaping or sanitization on data that you pass in as the user input to these functions. They accept arbitrary byte sequences, so any arbitrary byte sequence you pass is acceptable, and there should be no security risks as a consequence of it. In general, cryptographic algorithms operate on arbitrary byte sequences (possibly of specific sizes) and don't require standard escaping or sanitization for security (although they may require padding, range, or other types of checks) and systems that use the data may require this.

However, if you are accepting passwords that contain non-ASCII characters, you probably want to do some sort of Unicode normalization on the string (probably NFC), since there are often multiple ways to express the same logical character. For example, you could express "é" as a single code point (U+00E9) or as two code points (U+0065 U+0301), and normalization will rewrite these to the same string. Again, there are no security issues with this, but because users will think of these two passwords as the same when they have different byte sequences, performing normalization allows your system to think of them as the same password as well.

• oh very cool, i didn't think of the normalization thanks! is there a simple way to do NFC Unicode normailzation in javascript (nodejs) that you might prefer? i'll have a google about it as well, thanks Sep 2 at 0:12
• @phoenixdown javascript has a built-in way to normalize developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/… Sep 2 at 1:10
• @phoenixdown: Note that there are other kinds of "normalization" that may or may not make sense. It's more a question of usability than security. For example, I believe Facebook downcases passwords to prevent problems due to stuck shift keys / inadvertent caps lock. Then there's the question of homoglyphs, i.e. different characters that look the same. That may even depend on the font, e.g. some fonts use different glyphs for the Greek letter my and the micro sign, some use the same glyph. So, someone may think they typed a my but actually typed a micro or vice versa. Sep 3 at 10:48
• Case folding passwords significantly worsens security and you should not do it. Additionally, it is impossible to correctly fold the case of Unicode text in a locale-insensitive way. The IETF has other kinds of Unicode normalization that can be applied to passwords if NFC doesn't meet your needs that address some of these issues. Sep 3 at 11:02
• Be careful regarding normalization. On the one hand, the user may not be aware of which version of é they entered. On the other hand, they may be very aware and are assuming that the password handler will not make changes to their entry. At least document which normalization will be applied. Sep 3 at 21:13

This will depend on the specific implementation of the KDF that you're using. I'm not aware of any known issues with scrypt (although that doesn't meant there aren't any), but there have certainly been issues with the PHP implementation of Bcrypt where the presence of null bytes in the input would cause problems.

• I'd like to blame that mostly on PHP, but a quick glance at Wikipedia suggests that the handling of null bytes in bcrypt was indeed poorly specified, and I wouldn't be surprised if the original C reference implementation also had the same bug. (In any case, bcrypt isn't really a KDF but a password hashing function, and a rather old and outdated one at that. You can't use it for key derivation — at least not easily — and given that there are better alternatives, you really shouldn't be using it for password hashing nowadays either.) Sep 2 at 19:43
• Thanks @Gh0stFish, i notice in the blog post the author says scrypt and PBKDFv2 are not effected by the issue. What would you recommend? Checking the input for any null bytes and removing them before passing to scrypt? @bk2204 is this something you would also recommend? Sep 2 at 19:49
• @phoenixdown I don't think that you necessarily need to strip out null bytes, you just need to check that the specific implementation you're using handles them properly. For example, if you compare two strings such as foo and foo\0bar (with a fixed salt) and you end up with the same result, that suggests the library you're using doesn't handle null bytes properly - in which case you'd need to remove them. Sep 3 at 5:35
• Thanks that's a great idea - i can add a test to ensure foo and foo\0bar do not evaluate to the same result, and fail if they do. Sep 7 at 17:50