[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 03:15:55 -0500
From: Daniel Micay <danielmicay@...il.com>
To: kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com, "Jason A. Donenfeld"
<Jason@...c4.com>
Cc: hannes@...essinduktion.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org,
jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com, djb@...yp.to,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, ebiggers3@...il.com
Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] siphash: add
cryptographically secure hashtable function
On Thu, 2016-12-15 at 15:57 +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Jason A. Donenfeld <Jason@...c4.com> wrote:
> >
> > Siphash needs a random secret key, yes. The point is that the hash
> > function remains secure so long as the secret key is kept secret.
> > Other functions can't make the same guarantee, and so nervous
> > periodic
> > key rotation is necessary, but in most cases nothing is done, and so
> > things just leak over time.
>
> Actually those users that use rhashtable now have a much more
> sophisticated defence against these attacks, dyanmic rehashing
> when bucket length exceeds a preset limit.
>
> Cheers,
Key independent collisions won't be mitigated by picking a new secret.
A simple solution with clear security properties is ideal.
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (867 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
