Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:88878
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.173 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56250A9C.3050304@thefsb.org>
References: <CAAyV7nGLiGC_E1YYc21chGSKdUJm1KpZV9V3_rZn5eHOmyEarA@mail.gmail.com>
	<56242DC5.7010306@gmail.com>
	<56250A9C.3050304@thefsb.org>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 18:00:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CABHuAWxiwH5HLnMTPUR26b8RgBdTMJv8BRgNX9qNEk10iELXPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Cc: =?UTF-8?B?w4FuZ2VsIEdvbnrDoWxleg==?= <keisial@gmail.com>, 
	Anthony Ferrara <ircmaxell@gmail.com>, "internals@lists.php.net" <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c38d20b99c770522781672
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Password_hash salt generation refactor
From: t.carnage@gmail.com (Chris Riley)

--001a11c38d20b99c770522781672
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 19 October 2015 at 16:22, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> wrote:

> On 10/18/15 7:39 PM, =C3=81ngel Gonz=C3=A1lez wrote:
>
>> Korvin wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for 7.0.x security patch release, best effort sounds scary.
>>>
>> This is a salt. It doesn't need to be cryptographically secure. Using
>> php_rand()
>> there should pose no problem.
>> I would actually include that into the patch (move old lines 154-156
>> into the
>> FAILURE if).
>>
>
> A password salt needs to be unique. It does not need to be drawn from a
> CSPRNG but that is one of the few ways we can be reasonably confident of
> uniqueness (since, as usual, we assume the platform RNG is properly seede=
d).
>


A password salt should not be predictable, allowing a salt to potentially
become predictable is a bad idea. Solution is to use a CSPRNG for
generation of salts.

--001a11c38d20b99c770522781672--