Salting Your Password: Best Practices? [closed]

Question

Prefix or suffix is irrelevant, it's only about adding some entropy and length to the password.

You should consider those three things:

1. The salt has to be different for every password you store. (This is quite a common misunderstanding.)
2. Use a cryptographically secure random number generator.
3. Choose a long enough salt. Think about the birthday problem.

There's an excellent answer by Dave Sherohman to another question why you should use randomly generated salts instead of a user's name (or other personal data). If you follow those suggestions, it really doesn't matter where you put your salt in.

I think it's all semantics. Putting it before or after doesn't matter except against a very specific threat model.

The fact that it's there is supposed to defeat rainbow tables.

The threat model I alluded to would be the scenario where the adversary can have rainbow tables of common salts appended/prepended to the password. (Say the NSA) You're guessing they either have it appended or prepended but not both. That's silly, and it's a poor guess.

It'd be better to assume that they have the capacity to store these rainbow tables, but not, say, tables with strange salts interspersed in the middle of the password. In that narrow case, I would conjecture that interspersed would be best.

Like I said. It's semantics. Pick a different salt per password, a long salt, and include odd characters in it like symbols and ASCII codes: ©¤¡

The real answer, which nobody seems to have touched upon, is that both are wrong. If you are implementing your own crypto, no matter how trivial a part you think you're doing, you are going to make mistakes.

HMAC is a better approach, but even then if you're using something like SHA-1, you've already picked an algorithm which is unsuitable for password hashing due to its design for speed. Use something like bcrypt or possibly scrypt and take the problem out of your hands entirely.

Oh, and don't even think about comparing the resulting hashes for equality with with your programming language or database string comparison utilities. Those compare character by character and short-circuit as false if a character differs. So now attackers can use statistical methods to try and work out what the hash is, a character at a time.

It shouldn't make any difference. The hash will be no more easily guessable wherever you put the salt. Hash collisions are both rare and unpredictable, by virtue of being intentionally non-linear. If it made a difference to the security, that would suggest a problem with the hashing, not the salting.

If using a cryptographically secure hash, it shouldn't matter whether you pre- or postfix; a point of hashing is that a single bit change in the source data (no matter where) should produce a different hash.

What is important, though, is using long salts, generating them with a proper cryptographic PRNG, and having per-user salts. Storing the per-user salts in your database is not a security issue, using a site-wide hash is.

First of all, the term "rainbow table" is consistently misused. A "rainbow" table is just a particular kind of lookup table, one that allows a particular kind of data compression on the keys. By trading computation for space, a lookup table that would take 1000 TB can be compressed a thousand times so that it can be stored on a smaller drive drive.

You should be worried about hash to password lookup tables, rainbow or otherwise.

@onebyone.livejournal.com:

The attacker has 'rainbow tables' consisting not of the hashes of dictionary words, but of the state of the hash computation just before finalising the hash calculation.

It could then be cheaper to brute-force a password file entry with postfix salt than prefix salt: for each dictionary word in turn you would load the state, add the salt bytes into the hash, and then finalise it. With prefixed salt there would be nothing in common between the calculations for each dictionary word.

For a simple hash function that scans linearly through the input string, such as a simple linear congruential generator, this is a practical attack. But a cryptographically secure hash function is deliberately designed to have multiple rounds, each of which uses all the bits of the input string, so that computing the internal state just prior to the addition of the salt is not meaningful after the first round. For example, SHA-1 has 80 rounds.

Moreover password hashing algorithms like PBKDF compose their hash function multiple times (it is recommended to iterate PBKDF-2 a minimum of 1000 times, each iteration applying SHA-1 twice) making this attack doubly impractical.

BCrypt hash if the platform has a provider. I love how you don't worry about creating the salts and you can make them even stronger if you want.