Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:75625
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.220.180 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGa2bXa48gEEcE_DWE27B3UHD0Yi12bFVZsx-9t_anHunkj5Dg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGa2bXYP4L-EVjqiTvrOjbiRvzQJ7zyTQyu78O1AEEkk7nwEhQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAESVnVqBxo0VCYM_4V4_KzrD1+-F-0ipumrr_a=mAwaYje10Og@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAGa2bXa48gEEcE_DWE27B3UHD0Yi12bFVZsx-9t_anHunkj5Dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 10:09:12 +0800
Message-ID: <CAHMUw2FLW06ABT=1RoH2gMuM7HbGDdSnLzxqfv8wNVp0rzfw+Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net>
Cc: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01293f2c80467304fe5a201b
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] crypt() BC issue
From: tjerk.meesters@gmail.com (Tjerk Meesters)

--089e01293f2c80467304fe5a201b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Hi,


On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Yasuo Ohgaki <yohgaki@ohgaki.net> wrote:

> Hi Sara,
>
> On Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 8:53 AM, Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:
>
> > At the risk of perhaps missing the point, wouldn't it be more useful
> > to encourage users in some way (perhaps through documentation only) to
> > use password_hash()/password_verify() instead?  It was designed with
> > migration paths in mind.
> >
>
> I'll add them.
>
>
> >  Apps which are currently using crypt() for their own password systems
> > (the ones you would have migrate to crypt() + 1000 rounds) should be
> > pointed at the right solution, not placated with an "okay for now, but
> > may need to be migrated again later" route.
> >
> > As far as I'm aware, the only reason for not marking crypt()
> > E_DEPRECATED right now is for compatibility with external systems, and
> > as far as those go, changing a default won't effect anything.
> >
>
> Instead of relaxing crypt(), how about relax password_verify()?
>
> <?php
>
> $h='$6$rounds=10$qNElXs2yMnL2.GNS3kiM7DqmGbFLdQfIwu2691aJgT3xgJazPLtw7RPKz3Dp8RIc4b5fmJ7qvlq/mPN8a.rE40';
> $p='salasana';
> $c=crypt($p,$h);
> echo "HASH:  $h\n";
> echo "CRYPT: $c\n";
> if ($c == $h) {
>   echo "MATCH OK\n";
> } else {
>   echo "NO MATCH\n";
> }
>
> var_dump(password_verify($p, $h)); // Fails since password_verify() is
> crypt() wrapper
>
>
> $h2='$6$rounds=1000$qNElXs2yMnL2.GNS$/q7trYkbKkoJernsumbObt2IysdXGRx/ytFaG0HBC97rHHhYRQvUcyEuRHP6h5yj8V.fH7XKEw5hjofVmYONw1';
>
> var_dump(password_verify($p, $h2)); // Success since it has 1000 rounds
> ?>
>
> Current password_verify() is using the same hard coded 1000 rounds
> limitation, but
> it could be relaxed. This would be the best solution.
>

Why should `password_verify()` work on a hash that wasn't generated with
`password_hash()`? The fact that it uses `crypt()` internally should not
leak outside of its API, imho.


>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Yasuo Ohgaki
> yohgaki@ohgaki.net
>



-- 
--
Tjerk

--089e01293f2c80467304fe5a201b--