Difference between revisions of "Plain Stupid"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
No change in size ,  18:52, 20 December 2014
m
>4k rounds of HMAC, which involves applying the hash function twice, so >8k hash iterations ;)
m (ANd → And)
m (>4k rounds of HMAC, which involves applying the hash function twice, so >8k hash iterations ;))
 
Line 40: Line 40:
It also uses channel binding, as a way of detecting man-in-the-middle attacks on TLS.
It also uses channel binding, as a way of detecting man-in-the-middle attacks on TLS.


The server stores a string made from repeatedly hashing the password over 4000 times. An attacker can still break this by trying every password, but it takes much, much longer than cracking a DIGEST-MD5 intermediate hash.
The server stores a string made from repeatedly hashing the password over 8000 times. An attacker can still break this by trying every password, but it takes much, much longer than cracking a DIGEST-MD5 intermediate hash.


== What about PLAIN? ==
== What about PLAIN? ==


PLAIN will work with SCRAM-hashed stores, but it'll also work with almost every password store, from plaintext to Active Directory. So it's good to have a an IM client that supports PLAIN, but you're then sending your password in plaintext on the "wire" - a rogue server, or just bad debugging logs, could leak your password easily.
PLAIN will work with SCRAM-hashed stores, but it'll also work with almost every password store, from plaintext to Active Directory. So it's good to have a an IM client that supports PLAIN, but you're then sending your password in plaintext on the "wire" - a rogue server, or just bad debugging logs, could leak your password easily.
43

edits

Navigation menu