216 lines
11 KiB
ReStructuredText
216 lines
11 KiB
ReStructuredText
|
Password Hashing
|
||
|
========================================
|
||
|
|
||
|
Storing passwords for user authentication purposes in plaintext is the
|
||
|
simplest but least secure method; when an attacker compromises the
|
||
|
database in which the passwords are stored, they immediately gain
|
||
|
access to all of them. Often passwords are reused among multiple
|
||
|
services or machines, meaning once a password to a single service is
|
||
|
known an attacker has a substantial head start on attacking other
|
||
|
machines.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The general approach is to store, instead of the password, the output
|
||
|
of a one way function of the password. Upon receiving an
|
||
|
authentication request, the authenticating party can recompute the one way
|
||
|
function and compare the value just computed with the one that was
|
||
|
stored. If they match, then the authentication request succeeds. But
|
||
|
when an attacker gains access to the database, they only have the
|
||
|
output of the one way function, not the original password.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Common hash functions such as SHA-256 are one way, but used alone they
|
||
|
have problems for this purpose. What an attacker can do, upon gaining
|
||
|
access to such a stored password database, is hash common dictionary
|
||
|
words and other possible passwords, storing them in a list. Then he
|
||
|
can search through his list; if a stored hash and an entry in his list
|
||
|
match, then he has found the password. Even worse, this can happen
|
||
|
*offline*: an attacker can begin hashing common passwords days,
|
||
|
months, or years before ever gaining access to the database. In
|
||
|
addition, if two users choose the same password, the one way function
|
||
|
output will be the same for both of them, which will be visible upon
|
||
|
inspection of the database.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are two solutions to these problems: salting and
|
||
|
iteration. Salting refers to including, along with the password, a
|
||
|
randomly chosen value which perturbs the one way function. Salting can
|
||
|
reduce the effectiveness of offline dictionary generation, because for
|
||
|
each potential password, an attacker would have to compute the one way
|
||
|
function output for all possible salts. It also prevents the same
|
||
|
password from producing the same output, as long as the salts do not
|
||
|
collide. Choosing n-bit salts randomly, salt collisions become likely
|
||
|
only after about 2\ :sup:\ `(n/2)` salts have been generated. Choosing a
|
||
|
large salt (say 80 to 128 bits) ensures this is very unlikely. Note
|
||
|
that in password hashing salt collisions are unfortunate, but not
|
||
|
fatal - it simply allows the attacker to attack those two passwords in
|
||
|
parallel easier than they would otherwise be able to.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The other approach, iteration, refers to the general technique of
|
||
|
forcing multiple one way function evaluations when computing the
|
||
|
output, to slow down the operation. For instance if hashing a single
|
||
|
password requires running SHA-256 100,000 times instead of just once,
|
||
|
that will slow down user authentication by a factor of 100,000, but
|
||
|
user authentication happens quite rarely, and usually there are more
|
||
|
expensive operations that need to occur anyway (network and database
|
||
|
I/O, etc). On the other hand, an attacker who is attempting to break a
|
||
|
database full of stolen password hashes will be seriously
|
||
|
inconvenienced by a factor of 100,000 slowdown; they will be able to
|
||
|
only test at a rate of .0001% of what they would without iterations
|
||
|
(or, equivalently, will require 100,000 times as many zombie botnet
|
||
|
hosts).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Memory usage while checking a password is also a consideration; if the
|
||
|
computation requires using a certain minimum amount of memory, then an
|
||
|
attacker can become memory-bound, which may in particular make
|
||
|
customized cracking hardware more expensive. Some password hashing
|
||
|
designs, such as scrypt, explicitly attempt to provide this. The
|
||
|
bcrypt approach requires over 4 KiB of RAM (for the Blowfish key
|
||
|
schedule) and may also make some hardware attacks more expensive.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Botan provides three techniques for password hashing: Argon2, bcrypt, and
|
||
|
passhash9 (based on PBKDF2).
|
||
|
|
||
|
Argon2
|
||
|
----------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. versionadded:: 2.11.0
|
||
|
|
||
|
Argon2 is the winner of the PHC (Password Hashing Competition) and provides
|
||
|
a tunable memory hard password hash. It has a standard string encoding, which looks like::
|
||
|
|
||
|
"$argon2i$v=19$m=8192,t=10,p=3$YWFhYWFhYWE$itkWB9ODqTd85wUsoib7pfpVTNGMOu0ZJan1odl25V8"
|
||
|
|
||
|
Argon2 has three tunable parameters: ``M``, ``p``, and ``t``. ``M`` gives the
|
||
|
total memory consumption of the algorithm in kilobytes. Increasing ``p``
|
||
|
increases the available parallelism of the computation. The ``t`` parameter
|
||
|
gives the number of passes which are made over the data.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are three variants of Argon2, namely Argon2d, Argon2i and Argon2id.
|
||
|
Argon2d uses data dependent table lookups with may leak information about the
|
||
|
password via side channel attacks, and is **not recommended** for password
|
||
|
hashing. Argon2i uses data independent table lookups and is immune to these
|
||
|
attacks, but at the cost of requiring higher ``t`` for security. Argon2id uses a
|
||
|
hybrid approach which is thought to be highly secure. The algorithm designers
|
||
|
recommend using Argon2id with ``t`` and ``p`` both equal to 1 and ``M`` set to
|
||
|
the largest amount of memory usable in your environment.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: std::string argon2_generate_pwhash(const char* password, size_t password_len, \
|
||
|
RandomNumberGenerator& rng, \
|
||
|
size_t p, size_t M, size_t t, \
|
||
|
size_t y = 2, size_t salt_len = 16, size_t output_len = 32)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Generate an Argon2 hash of the specified password. The ``y`` parameter specifies
|
||
|
the variant: 0 for Argon2d, 1 for Argon2i, and 2 for Argon2id.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: bool argon2_check_pwhash(const char* password, size_t password_len, \
|
||
|
const std::string& hash)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Verify an Argon2 password hash against the provided password. Returns false if
|
||
|
the input hash seems malformed or if the computed hash does not match.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Bcrypt
|
||
|
----------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
`Bcrypt <https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/usenix99/provos/provos.pdf>`_ is a
|
||
|
password hashing scheme originally designed for use in OpenBSD, but numerous
|
||
|
other implementations exist. It is made available by including ``bcrypt.h``.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It has the advantage that it requires a small amount (4K) of fast RAM
|
||
|
to compute, which can make hardware password cracking somewhat more
|
||
|
expensive.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Bcrypt provides outputs that look like this::
|
||
|
|
||
|
"$2a$12$7KIYdyv8Bp32WAvc.7YvI.wvRlyVn0HP/EhPmmOyMQA4YKxINO0p2"
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. note::
|
||
|
|
||
|
Due to the design of bcrypt, the password is effectively truncated at 72
|
||
|
characters; further characters are ignored and do not change the hash. To
|
||
|
support longer passwords, one common approach is to pre-hash the password
|
||
|
with SHA-256, then run bcrypt using the hex or base64 encoding of the hash as
|
||
|
the password. (Many bcrypt implementations truncate the password at the first
|
||
|
NULL character, so hashing the raw binary SHA-256 may cause problems. Botan's
|
||
|
bcrypt implementation will hash whatever values are given in the
|
||
|
``std::string`` including any embedded NULLs so this is not an issue, but
|
||
|
might cause interop problems if another library needs to validate the
|
||
|
password hashes.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: std::string generate_bcrypt(const std::string& password, \
|
||
|
RandomNumberGenerator& rng, \
|
||
|
uint16_t work_factor = 12, \
|
||
|
char bcrypt_version = "a")
|
||
|
|
||
|
Takes the password to hash, a rng, and a work factor.
|
||
|
The resulting password hash is returned as a string.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Higher work factors increase the amount of time the algorithm runs,
|
||
|
increasing the cost of cracking attempts. The increase is exponential, so a
|
||
|
work factor of 12 takes roughly twice as long as work factor 11. The default
|
||
|
work factor was set to 10 up until the 2.8.0 release.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is recommended to set the work factor as high as your system can tolerate
|
||
|
(from a performance and latency perspective) since higher work factors greatly
|
||
|
improve the security against GPU-based attacks. For example, for protecting
|
||
|
high value administrator passwords, consider using work factor 15 or 16; at
|
||
|
these work factors each bcrypt computation takes several seconds. Since admin
|
||
|
logins will be relatively uncommon, it might be acceptable for each login
|
||
|
attempt to take some time. As of 2018, a good password cracking rig (with 8
|
||
|
NVIDIA 1080 cards) can attempt about 1 billion bcrypt computations per month
|
||
|
for work factor 13. For work factor 12, it can do twice as many. For work
|
||
|
factor 15, it can do only one quarter as many attempts.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Due to bugs affecting various implementations of bcrypt, several different
|
||
|
variants of the algorithm are defined. As of 2.7.0 Botan supports generating
|
||
|
(or checking) the 2a, 2b, and 2y variants. Since Botan has never been
|
||
|
affected by any of the bugs which necessitated these version upgrades, all
|
||
|
three versions are identical beyond the version identifier. Which variant to
|
||
|
use is controlled by the ``bcrypt_version`` argument.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The bcrypt work factor must be at least 4 (though at this work factor bcrypt
|
||
|
is not very secure). The bcrypt format allows up to 31, but Botan currently
|
||
|
rejects all work factors greater than 18 since even that work factor requires
|
||
|
roughly 15 seconds of computation on a fast machine.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: bool check_bcrypt(const std::string& password, \
|
||
|
const std::string& hash)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Takes a password and a bcrypt output and returns true if the
|
||
|
password is the same as the one that was used to generate the
|
||
|
bcrypt hash.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. _passhash9:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Passhash9
|
||
|
----------------------------------------
|
||
|
|
||
|
Botan also provides a password hashing technique called passhash9, in
|
||
|
``passhash9.h``, which is based on PBKDF2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Passhash9 hashes look like::
|
||
|
|
||
|
"$9$AAAKxwMGNPSdPkOKJS07Xutm3+1Cr3ytmbnkjO6LjHzCMcMQXvcT"
|
||
|
|
||
|
This function should be secure with the proper parameters, and will remain in
|
||
|
the library for the foreseeable future, but it is specific to Botan rather than
|
||
|
being a widely used password hash. Prefer bcrypt or Argon2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. warning::
|
||
|
|
||
|
This password format string ("$9$") conflicts with the format used
|
||
|
for scrypt password hashes on Cisco systems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: std::string generate_passhash9(const std::string& password, \
|
||
|
RandomNumberGenerator& rng, uint16_t work_factor = 15, uint8_t alg_id = 4)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Functions much like ``generate_bcrypt``. The last parameter,
|
||
|
``alg_id``, specifies which PRF to use. Currently defined values are
|
||
|
0: HMAC(SHA-1), 1: HMAC(SHA-256), 2: CMAC(Blowfish), 3: HMAC(SHA-384), 4: HMAC(SHA-512)
|
||
|
|
||
|
The work factor must be greater than zero and less than 512. This performs
|
||
|
10000 * ``work_factor`` PBKDF2 iterations, using 96 bits of salt taken from
|
||
|
``rng``. Using work factor of 10 or more is recommended.
|
||
|
|
||
|
.. cpp:function:: bool check_passhash9(const std::string& password, \
|
||
|
const std::string& hash)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Functions much like ``check_bcrypt``
|