[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAH8yC8mRVMKz=zxvV0mz+fonZ54WkN_vjy5qjdoQACT+7xX4pA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2026 16:39:24 -0500
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@...il.com>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: OpenSSH password auth bypass analysis [was: Re:
Advisory for OpenSSH+musl users]
Hi Rich,
One comment on Item (5) below.
On Fri, Nov 6, 2026 at 1:55 PM Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
> 5. Having a failure token not match any password is contingent on the
> caller of crypt passing the correct hash as the settign argument to
> crypt. While it's guaranteed that:
>
> crypt(pass,failure_token) != failure_token
>
> it is impossible to guarantee that:
>
> crypt(pass,some_other_hash) != failure_token
I think you can bind the username _and_ (salt,password) to the hash,
and that will ensure the conditions above behave as expected. That
is, instead of storing the hash of (salt,password), instead store
(username,salt,password). That should ensure a negligible probability
in cases where two users happen to use the same password, like
P@...ord1.
Jeff
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.
