On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 21:42 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: > On 10/03/2016 09:34 PM, William Brown wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-10-03 at 21:26 -0600, Rich Megginson wrote: > >> On 10/03/2016 08:58 PM, William Brown wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I want to close #48241 [0] as "wontfix". I do not believe that it's > >>> appropriate to provide SHA3 as a password hashing algorithm. > >>> > >>> The SHA3 algorithm is designed to be fast, and cryptographically secure. > >>> It's target usage is for signatures and verification of these in a rapid > >>> manner. > >>> > >>> The fact that this algorithm is fast, and could be implemented in > >>> hardware is the reason it's not appropriate for password hashing. > >>> Passwords should be hashed with a slow algorithm, and in the future, an > >>> algorithm that is CPU and memory hard. This means that in the (hopefully > >>> unlikely) case of password hash leak or dump from ldap that the attacker > >>> must spend a huge amount of resources to brute force or attack any > >>> password that we are storing in the system. > >> If the crypto/security team is ok with not supporting SHA3 for > >> passwords, works for me. > > Who would be a point of contact to ask this? > > Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmavrogi@xxxxxxxxxx> The response I received was unanimous and against SHA3 for password storage. I have closed the issue as a result, and will not pursue an implementation of this. -- Sincerely, William Brown Software Engineer Red Hat, Brisbane
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ 389-devel mailing list -- 389-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to 389-devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
