From owner-freebsd-current  Mon Jun 19 22:59:00 1995
Return-Path: current-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA26768
          for current-outgoing; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:59:00 -0700
Received: (from phk@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id WAA26759
          ; Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:58:59 -0700
From: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk>
Message-Id: <199506200558.WAA26759@freefall.cdrom.com>
Subject: Re: Crypto code - an architectural proposal.
To: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert)
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 1995 22:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: mark@grondar.za, wollman@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu, current@freebsd.org
In-Reply-To: <9506200541.AA24561@cs.weber.edu> from "Terry Lambert" at Jun 19, 95 11:41:50 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 1029      
Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> > > There are also some reasons for wishing that the system crypt() were
> > > slower as opposed to faster than it is now.
> > 
> > What are they, please? If it is to slow down hack-attacks, then this is
> > not really a reason, as a hacker could either bring his own fast crypt(3),
> > or we could slow down login(1) etc with sleep(3), giving us the advantage
> > with the crack programs.
> 
> I agree that the hack-attack prevention is a poor reason for slowing down
> crypt().

The MD5 based crypt() I wrote for 2.0 had this in mind.  It is sufficiently
slow that brute-force attacks are not fun, and it is frustrated by a
millisecond timestamp so dictionary attacks become very bulky.

Ten years from now it will probably have to be slowed down again :-(

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp           | phk@FreeBSD.ORG       FreeBSD Core-team.
http://www.freebsd.org/~phk | phk@login.dknet.dk    Private mailbox.
whois: [PHK]                | phk@ref.tfs.com       TRW Financial Systems, Inc.
Just that: dried leaves in boiling water ?