Hacker News Reader

Comment by udp | Hacker News Reader

You mean you're sending unhashed passwords from the client?

Yes. That is the standard behaviour that nearly all sites use, and is perfectly fine.

It's not great, though - it means that someone who hacks your server can get users' passwords a lot easier. I read a couple of weeks ago that Blizzard's games don't send the passwords to the server, they send a hash. Things are necessarily crappier on the web, of course.

Edit: there's more detail at the link below. It looks clear that in at least some of their schemes they deliberately do not send the client password to the server, which sounds like a decent idea.

http://www.skullsecurity.org/blog/2012/battle-net-authentica...

Sending a hash is no different than sending a plain text password. Because the attacker has complete control at their end and can just hack a client that sends that same hash even if they don't know the original password.

Would it not be an aid to users in cases where they are reusing the same password on multiple sites?

If the server is hacked, then all bets are off. They can just modify the webpage if they want the un-hashed password.

Exactly - "Things are necessarily crappier on the web, of course."

I wonder, though. Could there be a "code has changed" warning from the client? I mean, authentication should be pretty damn stable, and maybe even universal. If someone does modify the page, it'd be nice to know if that change was reflected on other sites, and it'd be nice to know that someone I trust had signed off on it (cryptographically).

A simple alternative is to build it into browsers. A password field could generate a salt per-domain and automatically encrypt any queries to password-fields. The server doesn't even need to know about it. You'd have to be more than a little careful building it, obviously, and you'd have to find a way to deal with passwords used on more than one site, but it could work.

Note that getting the client to send only the hashed password is incredibly silly. If there's a leak, the hackers do not even have to crack those passwords.

There's no real point to doing this. If you want to stop them being sniffed, send them over SSL.

What would be the point of hashing on the client? Let's say you're using md5, and you hash the password before you send it. Chances are, that un-salted hash can be easily decrypted by any number of reverse-lookup tables around online. You can't salt the hash client side, because anyone can look at your JS and find your salting tactic.

The best approach to securing information going from client to server is SSL.

It doesn't matter that they know your salting tactic, it still stops reverse-lookup tables with common passwords online.

However any salting tactic that can be pushed and used on the client side would have a tough time using a salt that is on a per-user basis. This means that if you could salt it client side, you would need to have a static salt, which is significantly less secure than a unique salt per user.

> However any salting tactic that can be pushed and used on the client side would have a tough time using a salt that is on a per-user basis.

How so? Surely the client would know their username too?

How many web login forms (as an example) are doing client side hashing? The only ones I know are of the recent 'test your password in the linkedin leak' variety.

How do you degrade for NoScript users?

And where's the harm in that anyway (assuming TLS)?

Graceful degradation is pretty easy. Override the form submit handler to hash the password, set a flag that the password is hashed, empty the original password, and submit the form. Users with JS blocked will just submit the unhashed password as usual.

Of course, if you're salting the hash uniquely for each user, then this approach isn't very helpful.

Finally, if your server will accept hashed passwords, then getting the hash is as good as getting the password for access to your site. The only benefit is that the password is hidden so you may avoid compromising security on other sites.

> Of course, if you're salting the hash uniquely for each user, then this approach isn't very helpful.

I've seen this advised a lot. However, where are you going to put the per-user salt? I presume in your users table, or somewhere in your db. Does this not mean that the salts are just as likely to be hacked as the encrypted passwords?

Are you not better off with either a single salt that's stored somewhere outside your db or with some other scheme for algorithmically picking a salt based on the user id?

Salts aren't meant to be secret (or rather, no more secret than the password hashes themselves). The goal is to prevent a precomputed brute force attack.

If you store straight unsalted hashes, you can precompute the hash for every likely password, store the precomputed hash -> password mappings in a nice efficient data structure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_table) and use the same precomputed tables to reverse every hash in the system with a very fast lookup. And every other system using the same unsalted hash scheme.

If you have a salt, this doesn't work -- you'd need a set of precomputed tables for each salt value, which rather defeats the object of precomputation.

If you take it a step further, and use a storage scheme like bcrypt or PBKDF2, not only are you protected from the precomputation attacks, but testing each password candidate takes much longer than a straight cryptographic hash -- so brute force attacks becomes much slower, too.

To put it differently, hashing without salting lets an attacker crack the entire database at once. Try a password, see if the hash is in the database, repeat.

With salts, the attacker can only attack a single user at a time. Try a password with one user's salt, see if the hash is in the database, try the next user's salt, see if that hash is in the database, repeat.

Salts don't need to be secret to work.

My point was that sending the hash the server doesn't work if the hash is salted per user since you don't know what the salt is. (I suppose you asynchronously fetch the salt value after the user puts in a username, but at the solution as a whole starts to fall apart.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com