undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmoe11y ago0 comments

Stanford published a paper that is basically the exact same model

Um yea.. "basically".

Except they demand an 'ultra-slow' hash function in that paper. You ignored that requirement and that makes your implementation equivalent[1] to using the same password for all websites.

[1] https://www.achilleslabs.com/product/4

0 comments

stepstep11y ago

2^16 rounds of SHA-256 might not be "ultra slow" but it's certainly not as bad as you make it seem. If you read the analysis in the article, it would take many years to crack a random password with this hash function. It's unfair to say I "ignored" that requirement.

moeOP11y ago

If you read the analysis in the article, it would take many years to crack a random password with this hash function.

You are wrong. Your analysis is based on the premise that an attacker might be able to compute "a billion hashes per second".

As I just showed you in my previous comment anyone with $3000 USD can actually compute at least 6000 billion hashes per second.

This means it takes about 11 days to crack a random 8-character alphanumeric password. Not 200 years as you claim.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse