-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 4,MIC-CLEAR Content-Domain: RFC822 Originator-Certificate: MIIBwDCCAWoCEQC43J7oZ50NWTRSVBShvvaXMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMFkxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRgwFgYDVQQKEw9TZWN1cmVXYXJlIEluYy4xFzAVBgNVBAsTDlNl Y3VyZVdhcmUgUENBMRcwFQYDVQQLEw5FbmdpbmVlcmluZyBDQTAeFw05NDA0MDUx NzA2NDJaFw05NTA0MDUxNzA2NDJaMHAxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRgwFgYDVQQKEw9T ZWN1cmVXYXJlIEluYy4xFzAVBgNVBAsTDlNlY3VyZVdhcmUgUENBMRcwFQYDVQQL Ew5FbmdpbmVlcmluZyBDQTEVMBMGA1UEAxMMQ2hhcmxlcyBXYXR0MFkwCgYEVQgB AQICAgQDSwAwSAJBDNmUqe2+nqg6iuUWzxaXegxki426RzmVNO6VHHYCV4nbo/WL X9a7Jn/2nWqZUK/l+RXqCHU/21Ur9jFIt4GNHhcCAwEAATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIF AANBAEY6kP5jHqK9B9PhZCCJ9mckYuKMufWr7l61LulXGwUTqFzjFC0MOYwXo5s+ 8lqrLQ7YpTzyE74pKR1cl5TAUU4= Issuer-Certificate: MIIBkDCCAToCEQCFP7oDPZq0SSDfetbu5nSkMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAgUAMEAxCzAJ BgNVBAYTAlVTMRgwFgYDVQQKEw9TZWN1cmVXYXJlIEluYy4xFzAVBgNVBAsTDlNl Y3VyZVdhcmUgUENBMB4XDTk0MDQwNTE3MDQyM1oXDTk1MDQwNTE3MDQyM1owWTEL MAkGA1UEBhMCVVMxGDAWBgNVBAoTD1NlY3VyZVdhcmUgSW5jLjEXMBUGA1UECxMO U2VjdXJlV2FyZSBQQ0ExFzAVBgNVBAsTDkVuZ2luZWVyaW5nIENBMFkwCgYEVQgB AQICAgADSwAwSAJBAL4Od/KxhOB6HyUbBJC2X6Ic2P0XEcGnddzJ1QEHjSFyx5qz n098ScMWDEJSiwrsVmQFbNvN01hkke7ZE21aG5sCAwEAATANBgkqhkiG9w0BAQIF AANBAIBzwWRF5SkoGAdcliVyog2caFtsPrq7lyBIp562B+ckFNderoDTc+JW+i4f MhnY9Q9I2KrlZV4GqcpZ+GjAeNk= MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, DHXK1gFgnW4z6WhdO2LUQjoUvLZ77mAzN+XGLcckFlabwPbzIS/ulDQT3g3qpwmb pH67h9MMxVasMzMiPsGBYP4= X-Sensitivity-Label: 1,CMW+3.0/SCO_2.1/sware.com,UNCLASSIFIED X-Information-Label: 1,CMW+3.0/SCO_2.1/sware.com,UNCLASSIFIED > > Charlie Watt <watt@sware.com> > > > >As you point out, a better cryptographic linkage between blocks would > >force the attacker to search the full password space for a given multiblock > >password rather than break it down into separate 8 byte searches. We will > >incoporate this into our next release. Thanks for the feedback. > > Why not just use md5 instead? > > -Dave We provide hooks into the password mechanism so that an installation can easily insert a site specific hashing scheme. The default mechanism is based upon crypt() purely for marketing reasons -- that is the way it has always been done and that is the way that most customers feel comfortable. It seems that "extensions" to the hash using crypt() that work the same as standard Unix for passwords <= 8 bytes but that can also accommodate longer passwords is an easier sell than something perceived as radically new and unproven. We do have more sophisticated customers who prefer to install their own algorithms. MD5 would be a reasonable choice, but even it would be judged inadequate (ONLY a 16 byte password hash space!) by some customers. Charlie Watt SecureWare, Inc. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----