Related
My co-workers are using a commercial program that encodes and stores login passwords on some database.
Now, I'm developing another program to achieve some other tasks, but I want my co-workers to authenticate to this program with their same username and passwords to avoid confusion.
The problem is, I don't have (and probably never will) any source code to determine which encryption algorithm they've used.
I ran some tests and observed that same passwords always produces same hashcodes with 24 characters in length. For example;
1 XeVTgalUq/gJxHtsMjMH5Q==
123456 0Q8UhOcqClGBxpqzooeFXQ==
Is there any way to determine which algorithm they've used ?
Thanks in advance,
Nope. That is the point of encryption / hashing-- it is supposed to be opaque so that it should not be easy to reverse engineer. The only thing you can do is try a few well-known hash algorithms like SHA-1 and see if the hash values match the other program. But, there's no way to know if the other program added in any "salt" or is hashing together multiple things, e.g. username + password or some other scheme. So you are probably out of luck on that front.
One idea you could try with your new program: if the user has never logged in before, allow them to log in the first time with ANY password. Tell the users that they should use the same password they did with the other program. Then, when they log in, capture that value and hash it using your own hashing scheme, then store that for future logins. So ultimately you would get the result you're aiming for (that users can use their same passwords), without having to reverse engineer the encryption scheme of the other program.
Now, clearly the drawback with this approach is that it is not secure at all for the first login. Someone could hijack another user's account if they logged in as that user before the real user had a chance to log in for the first time (and thereby lock in his password). So this is only an option if there is no sensitive data pre-loaded in the new program that could be compromised. Also you would need the ability for an administrator to reset a users' password so that if this kind of thing did happen, you could correct it easily when the real user reports that they can't log in.
I've read on SO (and from other websites found on Google after I tried to look into it a little bit more) that the correct secure way to store passwords in a database is to store the hashed + salted value of a password. On top of that, the salt should be different for each user so hackers can't do harm even if they have the encrypted values.
I'm not quite sure what salting means. From my understanding, you hash the password, then you use another value that you hash (the salt) and combine those two together so the algorithm to retrieve the original password is different for every user.
So basically, what I'd have to do is hash a password, then use a different hash on a different value for each user (ie: the user name or email address) and then I can do a simple math operation on those two values to get the encoded password.
Is that correct or did I just not understand anything about password hashing + salting?
A simple explanation or example would prove to be helpful as the sites I've found don't quite explain clearly what salting a password is.
Edit: After reading comments and answers left so far, I understand that I didn't really understand what a salt was because I'm missing some key concepts and I was making false assumption.
What I'd like to know is: how do you consistently get the same salt if it is randomly-generated? If the salt is stored in the database like some people have mentioned, then I can see how you keep getting the same salt, but that brings another question: How does it make the passwords more secure if anyone with access to the database have access to the salt? Couldn't they just append the (known) salt to all the passwords they try and the result would be the same (bar some minor time loss) than not having one at all?
Let me try and clarify a little bit with a somewhat oversimplified example. (md5() is used for example purposes only - you should not use it in practice.)
A salt is just a random string of characters that is appended to the password before it is hashed. Let's say you have the password letmein, and you hash it like this...
echo md5('letmein')
...you'll get the output 0d107d09f5bbe40cade3de5c71e9e9b7. If you google this, you'll get a number of pages telling you that this is the MD5 hash for letmein. A salt is intended to help prevent this sort of thing.
Let's suppose you have a function, randomStringGenerator() that generates a random $x-character string. To use it to salt a password, you'd do something like this:
$password = 'letmein';
$salt = randomStringGenerator(64); //let's pretend this is 747B517C80567D86906CD28443B992209B8EC601A74A2D18E5E80070703C5F49
$hash = md5($password . $salt);
You'd be then performing md5(letmein747B517C80567D86906CD28443B992209B8EC601A74A2D18E5E80070703C5F49), which returns af7cbbc1eacf780e70344af1a4b16698, which can't be "looked up" as easily as letmein without a salt.
You'd then store BOTH the hash and the salt, and when the user types in their password to log in, you'd repeat the process above and see if the password the user entered with the stored salt appended hashes to the same thing as the stored hash.
However! Since general hashing algorithms like MD5 and SHA2 are so fast, you shouldn't use them for storing passwords. Check out phpass for a PHP implementation of bcrypt.
Hope that helps!
One uses a salt to avoid the attacker creating a rainbow table, e.g. a table containing all (usual) passwords and the corresponding hashes, sorted (or somehow easily accessible) by hash. If the attacker has such a table or can create it, and then gets your password database with unsalted hashes, he can easily look up the passwords, even for all of your users at once.
If the hashes are salted (and the attacker gets the salt with the hashes), he will still be able to do the same attack (with only slightly more work to input the salt) - but now this work of building a rainbow table is useless for the next hash with another salt, which means this will need to be done for each user again. This alone is the goal of the salt. A dictionary attack on your single account still needs the same time as before, just the rainbow table is useless. (To do something against the dictionary attack, see below.)
How exactly the salt is used depends on the algorithm in use. Some hash algorithms (for example bcrypt, which is specially made for password hashing) have a special salt input parameter (or generate the salt themselves and include it in the output):
H = bcrypt(password, hardness) or H = bcrypt(salt, password, hardness)
(The first variant generates the salt itself, while the second takes it from the outside. Both include the hash and the hardness parameter in the output.)
Others need to be used in some special mode to use the salt.
A simple variant which works for most hash algorithms would be using HMAC, with the salt as "message" input, the password as key:
HMAC(password, salt) = Hash(password ⊕ opad || Hash(ipad ⊕ password || salt) )
where opad and ipad are some constant padding values.
Then you store the salt together with the hash. (For a slightly higher barrier, you could store the hash in another location than the salt. But you will still need both for login.) For login, you then will give the password and the stored salt to your hash function, and compare the result with the stored hash. (Most bcrypt libraries have a "password verification" function build in, which do this.)
For password storage it is important to use a slow hash algorithm, not a fast one, to avoid (or really: slow down) brute force or dictionary attacks on the passwords, as most people will have quite short passwords. bcrypt is an algorithm which was made just for this goal (its slowness is adaptable by a parameter).
If you use a fast hash function, be sure to repeat it often enough to be slow again. (But better, really: use bcrypt.)
Although #Chris and #Pualo have very good answers. I wanted to add one more thing about salting passwords that hasn't been expressed.
Salting a password is not a real protection mechanism. It doesn't matter if you are using bcrypt or any other mechanism. It is simply a delaying tactic, nothing more.
By using a different salt value per password you are forcing the hacker to create a rainbow table per password in order to crack them. This increases the amount of time it takes, but by no means does it make it impossible. Bear in mind that with cloud based computing you can spin up a large number of machines to create the rainbow tables and you can see that the delay is pretty small.
Further, most of the zombie machines out there are available for rent...
That said, the reason why you go through the trouble is to buy time. Time to notice that you've been breached, repair it and inform your users of the breach. That's it.
If an attacker obtained enough access to your database to pull the list of passwords, then it is pretty much guaranteed that they've obtained everything else. So, by this point you've already lost everything. The only question is how long does it take you to plug the hole, reset everyone's password and tell them that they should reset the passwords on any other account they may have where they used the same one. If you're Sony, then this time is apparently measured in months, if not years... ;) Try to be a little faster than that.
So, although it is the responsible thing to do it is only one part of your defensive tool belt. If you've been breached then you can bet those usernames and passwords will show up on a site somewhere at some point in the near future. Hopefully before then you've already cleaned up your house.
Using salt prevent precomputed rainbow-tables usage, as an example if a user use "Password" as a password, MD5("Password"), SHA1("Password"), or WhatEver("Password") may be well-known results stored in some rainbow tables.
If you use a different salt value per person - called a nonce - you'll get MD5(HMAC("Password","RandomSaltValue")), SHA1("Password","AnotherRandomSaltValue"), ... that mean two different hashed password values for the same initial password.
Now the question about storing these salts value...i think they can be stored into the database, the idea of salts are to prevent rainbow-style attack, not the database compromised issue.
Although bcrypt slows the process significantly down, it still would probably be feasible to attack your scheme if lots of computations can be made in parallel. I know it's unlikely and this would have to be a quite resourceful attacker indeed, but let's imagine the site you protect would contain photos and documents from Area 51 :) In that case, given enough parallelization, you could still be in trouble even if using bcrypt.
That's why I like the approach of scrypt - not only does it involve computational cost, but also it imposes memory constraints, specifically to introduce cost in terms of space and to make these kinds of parallel attacks infeasible. I can only recommend reading the paper that is linked on that site, it illustrates the concept really well.
Although, it seems that bcrypt and even more scrypt seem to get less attention in terms of cryptanalysis than PBKDF2outlined in RSA's PKCS#5. See this discussion for details.
I'd say first of all that security is very hard to do right, and that you really should rely on existing libraries to do as much as possible for you. For basic operations like password storage and validation that's definitely true.
EDIT: Removed erroneous info. I'll stick with the only good advice I had, which was not to roll your own.
What about Secure hash and salt for PHP passwords? It even has examples in PHP.
I'm currently working on a Web app that requires a high level of security and I've been thinking about the password handling. That I should use a hashed password, with a large enough salt is a given, but would it be a benefit to hash the password multiple times with different salts or different algorithms?
I'm not referring to the fact that you should hash the password multiple times to generate your password hash like Hash(Hash(Hash(salt + psw)))=pswhash, but instead I'm thinking about using Hash(Hash(Hash(salt1 + psw)))=pswhash1 and Hash(Hash(Hash(salt2 + psw)))=pswhash2, and then comparing to both upon login.
Using this routine an attacker mustn't only find one password that generates pswhash, but a password that must generate both hashes correctly. This way the possibility of an collision is virtually nil, but the attacker can use the second hash to determine if a password from the first hash is correct or not.
Additional information about the application:
The application is primarily an internal application for our company. Alla connections are handled with https, all usernames are unique for this application (ergo you can't choose your username) and all passwords are unique for this application (random generated, and you can't choose them). We are primarily concerned that someone gains unauthorized accesses to the system before we can react. If we have time to react the fact that "they" can find the exact password isn't that big a deal.
Use a tried-and-tested technique -- for example, PBKDF2 -- rather than trying to roll your own.
You should hash a password multiple times, enough times to take up a good fraction of a second. This makes it impossible for a hacker with access to your database to crack the passwords individually as the processing power required has gone up exponentially.
See this question for related information
I think hashing with multiple salts is basically another way of rehashing, and is security through obscurity, instead of doing that I would just stick to rehashing.
What algorithm should I use for encrypting and embedding a password for an application?
It obviously is not bullet proof, but it should be good enough to thwart someone scanning the database with a hex editor, or make it hard for someone who has the skills to use a debugger to trace the code to work out, either by scanning for the encrypted password, or using a debugger to run through the decryption code.
Object Pascal would be nice.
Major Edit
I think I did not explain myself well enough. The password needs to be decrypted back into its original form and applied. The application itself uses a local SQL database and a local webserver, and the password is fixed and can't be changed by the end users. It is to ensure that changes to be made only from within the app itself. The user passwords are only to allow access to the app itself, rather than the database
/vfclists
If you want an easy solution just stick with a good hashing algorithm like MD5 and store just the hash inside your application. Then whenever the user inserts the password you will calculate the hash of the password and check if it's equal to the one stored.
Of course this approach is a simple solution that doesn't allow you to retrieve the password if it's lost but it should work quite fine if you just need some protection..
EDIT: I mentioned MD5 that was fair good but not anymore, of course you can choose any other stronger function like SHA-2 (512/384) that is more robust. I just wanted to explain an approach more than using a specific hashing algorithm.
SHA should be ok for you, best with salt.
I don't know Object Pascal very well, but probably this will help you:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/op-crypt/
When an application has to do password checking only, it is best to save a hash. An hash can not be decrypted, but it can be checked whether the password the user enters has the same hash.
If you want to save the password so that it can be recovered, it is best to encrypt it first, using some crypto library.
I would suggest SHA1, its one way encryption, i've used it before and by far no one has decrypted it!
If you need more information on sha1 visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Hash_Algorithm and http://www.openssl.org/docs/crypto/sha.html.
PS: If you're using php you can simply encrypt with SHA1 using the sha1(); function!
I suspect that what you're aiming for is not storing passwords in the application, but trying to prevent the application itself from being run without the password, as a form of DRM. If that's the case, and you're looking to stymie people with debuggers, I think you're well into the realm of needing either a hardware dongle, or a network-based lock. Off the top of my head, I know SafeNet carry products that do this (and I've had some exposure to them in the past, they seem decent), but I don't know how well they compare to the rest of the market.
If you want as much real security as is possible in the scenario you're describing, you should require that when the system is installed an "administrator" enters the database password and his own administrator password; the application should then store a salted hash of the administrator's password, and it should store the database password encrypted with a differently-salted hash of the administrator's password. The database password (or information sufficient to reconstruct it) will be kept in memory while the program is running, but absent the administrator password there would be no way to retrieve when the program isn't running, even with full knowledge of the system.
If it's necessary to allow multiple users to access the database, an "add user" button could allow the addition of a user account. When the user types his password, use it to store hashed/encrypted data as with the administrator.
Any user with a debugger would be able to leverage his knowledge of a valid user account and password into knowledge of the database password, but someone who didn't have knowledge of a valid account password wouldn't be able to do anything.
If I am interpreting your question right, then you want to basically distribute your application to users, allow them to run it, and have the application update your database. At the same time, you want to prevent that person from being able to log in to the database and use it themselves directly.
If your program can be decompiled (like java, but I don't know about other languages like C, C++), then the person who has your application will be able to see the source code. Once they have that, there will most certainly be some way they can discover the user name and password. Even if your source code has stored the password using a reversible encryption algorithm, the person who holds your source code will be able to write similar code as yours to reverse the encryption and discover the password.
Even if your application cannot be decompiled, the user may be able to capture the network packets it sends to the database and determine the password from that. I don't know if you can communicate with the database over SSL.
Instead, I believe you need to split your application into client and server applications. You can write a restful web application, or use a messaging service (like JMS for example), and write a client application that uses it.
In that case, you may or may not want to have user accounts that are managed by your server side application. Let me be clear here, I am not talking about database accounts, but accounts that your application manages, and whose details happen to be stored in the database. If you do create user accounts, you can follow the pattern in my original answer shown below.
============== Hashing Approach, my original answer ============
As others have already mentioned, it's best to add salt to the password and use a digest algorithm before you store the password in your database. However, I think a little more detail is in order.
Using SHA1 or SHA2 with a salt value may be pretty strong, but there are even stronger methods. I highly recommend that you read this section of the spring security manual. I don't think you are using spring or java, but that section covers the concepts involved very well. Allow me to paraphrase:
Use at least an 8 byte salt value, up to 16 bytes would be great. The salt value should be different for every account, if it is the same then a cracker will only need to produce one rainbow table! It should be randomly generated. The documentation doesn't say this, but I also recommend using a secure random number generator, don't use a random number seed that produces a consistent sequence of numbers.
You should hash the password multiple times because it will cause brute force password hacking attempts to take increasingly more time. Indeed, you may want a slow password encoding algorithm instead of a fast one.
Store the raw salt value in the database along with the password, you can even store it in the same field/column. This is required so passwords can be verified in the future.
The BCryptPasswordEncoder is a good example of this.
===============
One alternative approach that may or may not solve your problem is to create a database account that has limited privileges. For example, you could create a database account that can only select, update, insert, and delete on specific tables in your database. You may not find this acceptable, because you may not want to let people do those operations directly, while you may want to let the application do those operations. It depends on your specific situation.
We are currently storing plain text passwords for a web app that we have.
I keep advocating moving to a password hash but another developer said that this would be less secure -- more passwords could match the hash and a dictionary/hash attack would be faster.
Is there any truth to this argument?
Absolutely none. But it doesn't matter. I've posted a similar response before:
It's unfortunate, but people, even programmers, are just too emotional to be easily be swayed by argument. Once he's invested in his position (and, if you're posting here, he is) you're not likely to convince him with facts alone. What you need to do is switch the burden of proof. You need to get him out looking for data that he hopes will convince you, and in so doing learn the truth. Unfortunately, he has the benefit of the status quo, so you've got a tough road there.
From Wikipedia
Some computer systems store user
passwords, against which to compare
user log on attempts, as cleartext. If
an attacker gains access to such an
internal password store, all passwords
and so all user accounts will be
compromised. If some users employ the
same password for accounts on
different systems, those will be
compromised as well.
More secure systems store each
password in a cryptographically
protected form, so access to the
actual password will still be
difficult for a snooper who gains
internal access to the system, while
validation of user access attempts
remains possible.
A common approache stores only a
"hashed" form of the plaintext
password. When a user types in a
password on such a system, the
password handling software runs
through a cryptographic hash
algorithm, and if the hash value
generated from the user's entry
matches the hash stored in the
password database, the user is
permitted access. The hash value is
created by applying a cryptographic
hash function to a string consisting
of the submitted password and,
usually, another value known as a
salt. The salt prevents attackers from
building a list of hash values for
common passwords. MD5 and SHA1 are
frequently used cryptographic hash
functions.
There is much more that you can read on the subject on that page. In my opinion, and in everything I've read and worked with, hashing is a better scenario unless you use a very small (< 256 bit) algorithm.
There is absolutely no excuse to keeping plain text passwords on the web app. Use a standard hashing algorithm (SHA-1, not MD5!) with a salt value, so that rainbow attacks are impossible.
I don't understand how your other developer things 'more passwords could match the hash'.
There is argument to a 'hash attack would be faster', but only if you're not salting the passwords as they're hashed. Normally, hashing functions allow you to provide a salt which makes the use of known hash table a waste of time.
Personally, I'd say 'no'. Based on the above, as well as the fact that if you do somehow get clear-text expose, a salted, hashed value is of little value to someone trying to get in. Hashing also provides the benefit of making all passwords 'look' the same length.
ie, if hashing any string always results in a 20 character hash, then if you have only the hash to look at, you can't tell whether the original password was eight characters or sixteen for example.
I encountered this exact same issue in my workplace. What I did to convince him that hashing was more secure was to write a SQL injection that returned the list of users and passwords from the public section of our site. It was escalated right away as a major security issue :)
To prevent against dictionary/hash attacks be sure to hash against a token that's unique to each user and static (username/join date/userguid works well)
If you do not salt your Password, you're suspect to Rainbow Table attacks (precompiled Dictionaries that have valid inputs for a given hash)
The other developer should stop talking about security if you're storing passwords in plaintext and start reading about security.
Collisions are possible, but not a big problem for password apps usually (they are mainly a problem in areas where hashes are used as a way to verify the integrity of files).
So: Salt your passwords (by adding the Salt to the right side of the password*) and use a good hashing algorhithm like SHA-1 or preferably SHA-256 or SHA-512.
PS: A bit more detail about Hashes here.
*i'm a bit unsure whether or not the Salt should to to the beginning or to the end of the string. The problem is that if you have a collisions (two inputs with the same hash), adding the Salt to the "wrong" side will not change the resulting hash. In any way, you won't have big problems with Rainbow Tables, only with collisions
There is an old saying about programmers pretending to be cryptographers :)
Jeff Atwood has a good post on the subject: You're Probably Storing Passwords Incorrectly
To reply more extensively, I agree with all of the above, the hash makes it easier in theory to get the user's password since multiple passwords match the same hash. However,
this is much less likely to happen than someone getting access to your database.
There is truth in that if you hash something, yes, there will be collisions so it would be possible for two different passwords to unlock the same account.
From a practical standpoint though, that's a poor argument - A good hashing function (md5 or sha1 would be fine) can pretty much guarantee that for all meaningfully strings, especially short ones, there will be no collisions. Even if there were, having two passwords match for one account isn't a huge problem - If someone is in a position to randomly guess passwords fast enough that they are likely to be able to get in, you've got bigger problems.
I would argue that storing the passwords in plain text represents a much greater security risk than hash collisions in the password matching.
I'm not a security expert but I have a feeling that if plain text were more secure, hashing wouldnt exist in the first place.
In theory, yes. Passwords can be longer (more information) than a hash, so there is a possibility of hash collisions. However, most attacks are dictionary-based, and the probability of collisions is infinitely smaller than a successful direct match.
It depends on what you're defending against. If it's an attacker pulling down your database (or tricking your application into displaying the database), then plaintext passwords are useless. There are many attacks that rely on convincing the application to disgorge it's private data- SQL injection, session hijack, etc. It's often better not to keep the data at all, but to keep the hashed version so bad guys can't easily use it.
As your co-worker suggests, this can be trivially defeated by running the same hash algorithm against a dictionary and using rainbow tables to pull the info out. The usual solution is to use a secret salt plus additional user information to make the hashed results unique- something like:
String hashedPass=CryptUtils.MD5("alsdl;ksahglhkjfsdkjhkjhkfsdlsdf" + user.getCreateDate().toString() + user.getPassword);
As long as your salt is secret, or your attacker doesn't know the precise creation date of the user's record, a dictionary attack will fail- even in the event that they are able to pull down the password field.
Nothing is less secure than storing plain-text passwords. If you're using a decent hashing algorithm (at least SHA-256, but even SHA-1 is better than nothing) then yes, collisions are possible, but it doesn't matter because given a hash, it's impossible* to calculate what strings hash to it. If you hash the username WITH the password, then that possibility goes out the window as well.
* - technically not impossible, but "computationally infeasible"
If the username is "graeme" and the password is "stackoverflow", then create a string "graeme-stackoverflow-1234" where 1234 is a random number, then hash it and store "hashoutput1234" in the database. When it comes to validating a password, take the username, the supplied password and the number from the end of the stored value (the hash has a fixed length so you can always do this) and hash them together, and compare it with the hash part of the stored value.
more passwords could match the hash and a dictionary/hash attack would be faster.
Yes and no. Use a modern hashing algorithm, like an SHA variant, and that argument gets very, very week. Do you really need to be worried if that brute force attack is going to take only 352 years instead of 467 years? (Anecdotal joke there.) The value to be gained (not having the password stored in plain text on the system) far outstrips your colleague's concern.
Hope you forgive me for plugging a solution I wrote on this, using client side JavaScript to hash the password before it's transmitted: http://blog.asgeirnilsen.com/2005/11/password-authentication-without.html