[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <au6hw0HOjwww8_CD@pie>
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2026 03:57:55 +0000
From: Yao Zi <me@...ao.cc>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Cc: Yao Zi <me@...ao.cc>
Subject: Re: OpenSSH password auth bypass analysis [was: Re:
Advisory for OpenSSH+musl users]
On Fri, Nov 06, 2026 at 04:39:24PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> 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.
This couldn't be achieved in the current way that crypt() is commonly
used, right?
> Jeff
Regards,
Yao Zi
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.
