-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 671
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
2.7.5 is a security problem and weakness #1812
Comments
We have separate requirement for password storage:
Do we want to have hashing requirements separately for "usual password" and "out of band verifier" (and also for "lookup secrets")? My question (and a bit recommendation is) - can we move/merge hashing part from those requirements to 2.4.1?
|
I like the idea of combining these. Perhaps:
[MODIFIED] Verify that the application employs one of the following
robust password hashing functions for securely storing secrets requiring
verification. This includes user passwords, lookup secrets, out-of-band
verifiers, and similar entities. The recommended hashing functions are
argon2id, scrypt, bcrypt, or PBKDF2.
|
Feels a bit wordy AI output for me. What do you think about direction like:
|
I like your requirement text better let’s do this.
|
Anything to keep from current 2.6.2 and 2.7.5? |
Is there a way we can centralize the list of password storage algorithms and have other requirements point to it?
Otherwise is looks good to me.
|
This is one of those NIST requirements that hurts my head to read and to be honest I think that it has been misinterpreted. The NIST requirement talks about an identifying key and an authentication secret. It talks about hashing the former and it talks about the latter having at least 20 bits of entropy. I think this is one of those sections that is going to need some sort of simplification to be usable so I would suggest either deleting this requirement or leaving this issue open for when someone does the V2 rewrite. |
My only point here is that secrets that only need to be verified (and not reversed) should use a password hash, not a normal hash (message integrity code). |
I propose deleting this as insufficient impact, I don't think this temporary code is important enough or long lived enough for me to care how it is stored. |
This requirement is a security weakness.
Even 8 numerical digits when hashed are discoverable via rainbow tables.
I suggest we change this to:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: