Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKmKYaCUMMKr9mA6ssDVHyzcx+hueBdaOSgBCcrZr603Ci=R8A@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CABvT1DFkZHWMZ15DCVQiedy9+GdgCtXhMtY-8qfPq35bmeHOsw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKmKYaCUMMKr9mA6ssDVHyzcx+hueBdaOSgBCcrZr603Ci=R8A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 15:50:27 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CABvT1DH7jyvX1H95a+jqheg64PN1Y8AVuQCg7UoC9wC1+3ZjYA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Improving password hashing.
From: Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Because PBKDF2 has been designed and tested by cryptographers and is
fully described in RFC 2898 which includes test vectors to verify an
implementation. bcrypt is tied to a now obsolete cipher (blowfish), I
don't know anything much about scrypt but anyone can claim they
designed it to be more secure, but proving it is another matter.

B.

On 6 July 2011 15:43, Dirkjan Ochtman <dirkjan@ochtman.nl> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 14:43, Robert Newson <rnewson@apache.org> wrote:
>> Some time ago I wrote some code to implement the PBKDF2 protocol. This
>> is a cryptographically sound means of deriving a key from a password.
>
> Why is this better than stuff like bcrypt or scrypt? The page for the
> latter, at least, states that it "is designed to be far more secure
> against hardware brute-force attacks than alternative functions such
> as PBKDF2".
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dirkjan
>