From: Phillip Susi <psusi@cfl.rr.com>
To: Phillip Hellewell <phillip@hellewell.homeip.net>
Cc: Michael Halcrow <lkml@halcrow.us>,
Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@us.ibm.com>,
akpm@osdl.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, viro@ftp.linux.org.uk,
mcthomps@us.ibm.com, yoder1@us.ibm.com, toml@us.ibm.com,
emilyr@us.ibm.com
Subject: Re: eCryptfs Design Document
Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2006 21:53:05 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <44275391.40501@cfl.rr.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060327000522.GA11655@hellewell.homeip.net>
Phillip Hellewell wrote:
> Again I concur with Mike. Iterative hashing is a very common technique,
> and is very effective against this type of dictionary attack. If you
> hash 1000 times, then an attack that normally could check 1 million
> passwords per second would now only be able to check 1000 passwords per
> second.
>
> Without iterative hashing, as computers get faster, so would dictionary
> attacks, and then people would have to keep using longer and longer
> passwords to be as effective. Iterative hashing "levels the playing
> field" in a way.
>
Except that I believe you can write code to compute the nth hash in O(1)
time rather than O(n) time, so that kind of defeats the purpose, though
I'm no expert so I could be wrong.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-27 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-24 22:25 eCryptfs Design Document Michael Halcrow
2006-03-24 23:12 ` James Morris
2006-03-27 16:17 ` Michael Thompson
2006-03-27 16:52 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-24 23:49 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-25 0:13 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-25 0:33 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-25 7:38 ` Miklos Szeredi
2006-03-27 23:31 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-28 16:00 ` Stephen C. Tweedie
2006-03-29 20:14 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-25 19:28 ` Phillip Susi
2006-03-25 19:50 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-26 17:10 ` Phillip Susi
2006-03-26 18:04 ` Michael Halcrow
2006-03-27 0:05 ` Phillip Hellewell
2006-03-27 2:53 ` Phillip Susi [this message]
2006-03-27 16:10 ` Michael Thompson
2006-04-10 2:11 ` David Wagner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-28 13:49 Christian Cachin
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=44275391.40501@cfl.rr.com \
--to=psusi@cfl.rr.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=emilyr@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lkml@halcrow.us \
--cc=mcthomps@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mhalcrow@us.ibm.com \
--cc=phillip@hellewell.homeip.net \
--cc=toml@us.ibm.com \
--cc=viro@ftp.linux.org.uk \
--cc=yoder1@us.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.