You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I am going through requirements outlined in NIST SP 800-63B for AAL1, to make sure that my Clojure application is compliant. When going through section "5.1.1.2 Memorized Secret Verifiers", it seems that :bcrypt+sha512 does fulfill all the requirements, except for:
In addition, verifiers SHOULD perform an additional iteration of a key derivation function using a salt value that is secret and known only to the verifier. This salt value, if used, SHALL be generated by an approved random bit generator [SP 800-90Ar1] and provide at least the minimum security strength specified in the latest revision of SP 800-131A (112 bits as of the date of this publication). The secret salt value SHALL be stored separately from the hashed memorized secrets (e.g., in a specialized device like a hardware security module). With this additional iteration, brute-force attacks on the hashed memorized secrets are impractical as long as the secret salt value remains secret.
As far as I know this is not something that buddy-hashers does at this point?
The NIST guidelines can be found at https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html and seem not only very reasonable and well-written, but also a rather convenient set of rules that we could all adhere to.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hello @jwr
You are correct, right now buddy-hashers only uses public salt. A private salt is somethig like HMAC mechanism, that allows invalidate all passwords just changing this private salt. We can think on integrate this as an optional feature.
I am going through requirements outlined in NIST SP 800-63B for AAL1, to make sure that my Clojure application is compliant. When going through section "5.1.1.2 Memorized Secret Verifiers", it seems that
:bcrypt+sha512
does fulfill all the requirements, except for:As far as I know this is not something that buddy-hashers does at this point?
The NIST guidelines can be found at https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/sp800-63b.html and seem not only very reasonable and well-written, but also a rather convenient set of rules that we could all adhere to.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: