Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94859
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.48 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAGC=tR=4v0KAkqnU1Q3Fr5AeM8o_PuJfP9rYQ_s4X3=Z9UUh=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAGC=tRnpka_ym=f-xsskjeiPaqahsTEAxPq9=E8Z73KQKeRrHg@mail.gmail.com>
 <81b5a129-9c90-0a54-921f-7e1f9b5f727f@thefsb.org> <CAGC=tR=4v0KAkqnU1Q3Fr5AeM8o_PuJfP9rYQ_s4X3=Z9UUh=w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2016 09:08:14 -0600
Message-ID: <CAObuZdsq33=g4wG=FP0bOHnsE9N+PrCu3nGs7ZNAxx=rX4dJ+w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Charles R. Portwood II" <charlesportwoodii@erianna.com>
Cc: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e01419f228e525c0539546fdd
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Argon2 Password Hash
From: derokorian@gmail.com (Ryan Pallas)

--089e01419f228e525c0539546fdd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Charles R. Portwood II <
charlesportwoodii@erianna.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 9:19 AM, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> wrote:
>
> > On 8/5/16 8:47 AM, Charles R. Portwood II wrote:
>
> Finally, I wonder if it wouldn't be better if, for the time being, we
> > do not provide default costs constants. Argon2 is new (as crypto algos
> > go) and very early in a gradual introduction in deployments. And it is
> > hard to use because of the three cost factors. Correctly tuning those
> > for different machines is not yet a commonly-understood skill. (You
> > even can find conflicting advice on how to tune Bcrypt's time factor.)
> >
>
>
> If, on the other hand, we omit the constants and require the $options
> > argument then it discourages inexpert users. At the same time it
> > encourages experimentation and understanding of the costs, among those
> > who take an interest, which I think is just what we want.
>
>
> The rationale for providing defaults is to ensure the password_* functions
> remain easy to use. Assuming that at some point PASSWORD_ARGON2I (or any
> new algorithm) would become PASSWORD_DEFAULT, the end user's expectations
> would be that *password_hash($password, PASSWORD_DEFAULT)* just works,
> without needing to specify additional arguments.
>

I think this is the most important part to consider. If you make $options
required for this algo, then making this algo the PASSWORD_DEFAULT would
mean that its a backwards incompatible change, because now all calls to
password_hash($password, PASSWORD_DEFAULT) would need to be updated to use
an older constant or pass in $options which I think totally defeats the
purpose of the password_hash API.

Please keep it so that defaults will work, but $options is available for
tuning as that's how the feature currently works.

--089e01419f228e525c0539546fdd--