Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-security (520 mails)

< Previous Next >
RE: [suse-security] Password Encryption
  • From: "arawak" <arawak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 19:26:30 +0100
  • Message-id: <!~!UENERkVCMDkAAQACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABgAAAAAAAAAvAIpEKODn0KroWW+8U8qhsKAAAAQAAAAp3kcv06QFkyS+9BDHS133gEAAAAA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Hi,

I'm following this thread and need a little clarity.

I'm thinking that if my password was ABC then hashed, the result is
compared in the hashed file correct?

Therefore could be possible to have another password that when compared
to the hashed value it
could give the be the same result of my ABC password?

Dre :)

Luck is my game ;-)
Linux is my aim :)

-----Original Message-----
From: Reckhard, Tobias [mailto:tobias.reckhard@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2002 11:24 AM
To: suse-security@xxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [suse-security] Password Encryption


> ok, but if we knows, that there is a way to crack the shadow file, why
> don't we use a secure algorithm ? (triple DES or AES) Are there no
> implementation for this algorithms ? (a DES cracker-maschine costs
> about 100.000 $)

Wait! and read aloud after me: "The password is *not* encrypted." Take a
deep breath. Now repeat it, please.

The password is in fact hashed. The resulting hash is stored in
/etc/shadow. The password is gone after that, there's no trace of it
left.

What then happens, when you login, is that the password you supply to
the system is hashed and the hash is compared to the one stored in
/etc/shadow. If they match, you're in, if they don't, you're not.

As Olaf has repeatedly said, in the case where DES is used, the salt is
encrypted using the password as a key to get the 'hash'.

However, if you're using 'MD5 passwords' (which is something of a
misnomer, of course), DES isn't involved.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Cheers
Tobias

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: suse-security-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: suse-security-help@xxxxxxxx
Security-related bug reports go to security@xxxxxxx, not here


< Previous Next >
References