undefined | Better HN

0 pointsespadrine11y ago0 comments

I meant it in the brute-force sense, yes. I'm not sure how practical it would be when the input of the SHA-2 is random, however.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

emn1311y ago· 2 in thread

Yeah - brute forcing is really only a relevant attack if the number of possibilities is fairly limited (even with a really fast hash). Scrypt output is likely to be effectively random (if salted) - and without salt, you'd need to build an expensive (but potentially feasible) rainbow table of possible scrypt output.

ademarre11y ago

> you'd need to build an expensive (but potentially feasible) rainbow table of possible scrypt output

I don't think that's feasible. "Expensive" is an understatement. To compute the rainbow table you need to do the work of actually calculating the scrypt output for each password, even though you don't have to store it. The space is just too big, therefore the time cost.

emn1311y ago

It's a question of size - clearly a rainbow table of 1 is feasible. I'm guessing a rainbow table of a million won't be too expensive either, and with a million common passwords, you'd likely crack something.

But yeah, it's not likely to be a major threat. In any case, salting makes it irrelevant.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse