[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120820005128.GB27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 20:51:28 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...ifal.cx>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Help-wanted tasks for musl
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 07:29:21PM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote:
> * Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> [2012-08-19 18:56:52 +0200]:
> > 3)* reference implementation and glibc accepts negative
> > rounds in an implementation defined way, ie.
> >
> > '$5$rounds=-4294965296$' is treated as
> > '$5$rounds=2000$' on a 32bit system and as
> > '$5$rounds=999999999$' on a 64bit one
> >
> > (according to spec N is clamped into 1000...999999999
> > so the correct treatment would be '$5$rounds=1000$')
> >
>
> i was wrong here about the correct treatment
>
> the spec says that N is an unsigned decimal so negative
> numbers must not be recognized at all
> (so in this case the default rounds should be used and
> 'rounds=-4294965296' should be treated as salt)
>
> but i guess the spec does not matter much in this case,
> either we should be bug compatible with glibc or reject
> such salts
The characters '=', '-', and '$' are not valid in salt, are they?
My preference would be to reject anything that looks like a setting
but actually gets treated as salt, rather than hashing it in some
implementation-specific way that leads to buggy, non-portable password
hashes.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
