Away on holidays, late reply, apologies. I would like to see bcrypt introduced, a number of sites seem to be moving that way, would be nice if apache did too!
On 6/24/12, Stefan Fritsch <s...@sfritsch.de> wrote: > On Saturday 23 June 2012, William A. Rowe Jr. wrote: >> On 6/23/2012 3:42 PM, Stefan Fritsch wrote: >> > bcrypt [1] and scrypt [2] seem to be much more difficult to port >> > to hardware or GPUs than sha256/512_crypt [3-5]. We can't make >> > the operation too expensive on normal CPUs or we create a DoS >> > problem if someone does lots of requests with wrong passwords. >> > Therefore I think choosing an algorithm that does not scale well >> > on more specialized hardware is good. >> > >> > Both bcrypt and scrypt can be adjusted in how much CPU time to >> > use. scrypt can also be adjusted in how much RAM it uses. bcrypt >> > uses a 128bit salt, AFAICS scrypt can use arbitrary salt >> > lengths. >> > >> > Bcrypt has seen a lot more review than scrypt, therefore I am >> > somewhat in favor of bcrypt. Crypt_blowfish [6] is an >> > implementation with a very liberal license that we could use. >> > Scrypt has a 2-clause BSD license which would also be OK. >> > >> > Opinions? >> >> We already have integration points to openssl, why add yet another >> dependency? Seems foolish. > > Openssl is not required, neither for apr nor for httpd. I propose to > import either crypt_blowfish or scrypt into apr, just like apr > contains some foreign sha1 and md5 code. This way we would not get an > additional external dependency. >
