PHP Security: Passwords

dewbiez on September 22, 2018

My Password Rules Minimum length of 16 characters. Maximum length of 256, 512, 1,024 or 2,048 characters. Make sure the password isn't pwned. A... [Read Full]
markdown guide
 

You can turn 4 characters, into a really long string with an HMAC. And there you go, it's better than just storing 4 characters.

Why would this be better than storing 4 characters? You can easily enumerate all 10000 possibilities in spite of the HMAC. Even if the string is longer, the bits of entropy remain the same.

 

Though this proves effective since the HMAC is basically peppering the PIN?

This wouldn't be more effective? Even if the attacker didn't know the PIN was being saved with an HMAC?

 

Full disclosure: I am not an expert.

So there's two things at play here:

Why the heck are you HMACing the password?!
What if they put in a 4 megabyte password, and send multiple requests? This could effectively DDoS you. However, you can prevent that, by pre-hashing with a fast algorithm such as SHA256.

Hashing is inherently throwing away some of the entropy, since it's a function mapping an arbitrary-sized input space (say, a 4MB password) into the output space of the hash function (in the case of SHA256, 256 bits). In this case, not storing 4 MB means that you're not really getting the "power" of a 4 MB long password.

Only 4 digit numbers, can be brute-forced within a reasonable amount of time. Think about it, you're only hashing 4 characters. You can turn 4 characters, into a really long string with an HMAC. And there you go, it's better than just storing 4 characters.

So it may seem like the output is longer, but really a hash/HMAC of an input space constrained to 4 numeric digits is not made harder to guess by passing it through a hash function. Since the hash function necessarily maps the same input to the same output, the range of possible outputs is still just 10,000 values. For example, a dictionary attack targeting pins would still be as effective against this scheme -- it does not inherently strengthen a weak password at all.

If the concern is simply to obscure the nature of the password (that it's a PIN) from an attacker, well, that smells a bit like security by obscurity to me :)

 

While there’s some good ideas here, this all sounds like a really bad idea. Bcrypt does a really good job and can be tuned to be even harder to crack, making it very good at resisting brute force dictionary attacks. There’s other similar algorithms that can be better, but Bcrypt is a good baseline.

This HMAC approach, even using SHA3, seems really high risk, and the AES layer is just a minor inconvenience for any attacker. GPU accelerated cracking can smash through those with unnerving speed.

It’s also extremely doubtful that a password over 72 letters long is more secure than a 72 letter one. If that’s a random password, it’s already impossible to crack. That length is enough to accommodate even generously long pass-phrases, and most aggressively random passwords are 32-64 letters at most.

While opinions are fine, they don’t matter when you’re compromised, which is why I find these recommendations really concerning. Security is a huge responsibility when building a site that people will trust their passwords with. Don’t take short-cuts or be clever. Follow recommended best practices, and keep up to date with your techniques.

Today that means use Bcrypt and always encrypt your production data backups.

 
 

But, I'm curious. What do you mean the HMAC seems really high risk?

 

HMAC is intended to be fast, which makes it ideal for crackers. For passwords you want something deliberately slow. Bcrypt is one such function, and it can be tuned to be even slower if you prefer.

For example, you can crunch through potentially a million passwords per second using a GPU-accelerated rig and software like HashCat if it's just HMAC-SHA3.

Bcrypt with default settings is around 13K per second on the same hardware. It's hundreds of times slower, plus you can increase the factor which can make it even slower still.

When protecting passwords you need to consider how long you need to keep them protected. Eventually every hashing method will be compromised, MD5 and SHA1 have been effectively beaten. By using a stronger Bcrypt setting you can make it harder to crack passwords on not just today's hardware, but hardware that exists ten years from now, protecting your application against future attacks.

Twenty-five years ago when using SHA-based password hashes it was inconceivable that a consumer-grade GPU could have several thousand threads, that would be more powerful than any supercomputer on the planet at the time. What hardware will exist twenty-five years from now? What if having a half-million threads is considered no big deal?

As much as twenty-five years seems like a long time, what if ten years from now your app gets hacked, and ten years after that the database starts floating around as part of a Torrent? Those passwords might still be in use, some people are really bad at changing them, which means you've got a responsibility to do your best to protect them.

There's a lot to understand here, but this post covers a lot of ground.

Yeah, I used HashCat to attack a Bcrypt hash before. I could do roughly 10-11 thousand attempts per second.

You did take note I wasn't just HMACing and encrypting the password though, right? I don't want any confusion. I was using a password hashing function.

That's what makes Bcrypt so great. Smashing through a dictionary against a compromised database is painful, and you can make it even more painful by cranking up the difficulty factor. It's very resistant against brute force attacks.

HMAC is meant for other things, like signing, where you're not dealing with brute-force attacks, where instead performance, authentication and verification are what matters. It's not in any way intended for, nor suitable to use as a password hash.

 

And why do you make it sound like it's so easy to break AES encryptions? Is it?

 

Since the application must keep the AES key around somewhere handy, in the event of a compromise it's going to get stolen as well and then your encryption is worthless as they have the key.

From there dealing with a single layer of HMAC is pretty trivial.

 

Cryptography requires solid understanding of entropy and randomness and I’m not seeing that in this article. We need an adult in here, I know just know enough to be suspicious but not enough to refute and could use the insights of experts.

 
 

I have a much longer password than 16 characters for Windows. Where did you get that limit from?

 

The Microsoft website, or at least it did.

 

passwords are not tweets or blogs to be too long? your disclaimer that you are by no means expert, invalidates all the opinions of your anyway. 😊

 

I just don't want to label myself as an expert, but I've done extensive research. I still prefer my opinion over others.

 

Security is hard. Many folks get it wrong. I have some Axis cameras with 8-character maximum passwords! (Plus they silently truncate when saving but not comparing, so you can set it to 123456789 but then you have to enter 12345678 to unlock).

 

It is hard. I'm trying to get better at it. And yeah that sucks. Truncating your password silently.

code of conduct - report abuse