Secure hash and salt for PHP passwords

Question

It is currently said that MD5 is partially unsafe. Taking this into consideration, I'd like to know which mechanism to use for password protection.

This question, Is “double hashing” a password less secure than just hashing it once? suggests that hashing multiple times may be a good idea, whereas How to implement password protection for individual files? suggests using salt.

I'm using PHP. I want a safe and fast password encryption system. Hashing a password a million times may be safer, but also slower. How to achieve a good balance between speed and safety? Also, I'd prefer the result to have a constant number of characters.

1. The hashing mechanism must be available in PHP
2. It must be safe
3. It can use salt (in this case, are all salts equally good? Is there any way to generate good salts?)

Also, should I store two fields in the database (one using MD5 and another one using SHA, for example)? Would it make it safer or unsafer?

In case I wasn't clear enough, I want to know which hashing function(s) to use and how to pick a good salt in order to have a safe and fast password protection mechanism.

Related questions that don't quite cover my question:

What's the difference between SHA and MD5 in PHP
Simple Password Encryption
Secure methods of storing keys, passwords for asp.net
How would you implement salted passwords in Tomcat 5.5

Answer 1

I just want to point out that PHP 5.5 includes a password hashing API that provides a wrapper around crypt(). This API significantly simplifies the task of hashing, verifying and rehashing password hashes. The author has also released a compatibility pack (in the form of a single password.php file that you simply require to use), for those using PHP 5.3.7 and later and want to use this right now.

It only supports BCRYPT for now, but it aims to be easily extended to include other password hashing techniques and because the technique and cost is stored as part of the hash, changes to your prefered hashing technique/cost will not invalidate current hashes, the framework will automagically, use the correct technique/cost when validating. It also handles generating a "secure" salt if you do not explicitly define your own.

The API exposes four functions:

• password_get_info() - returns information about the given hash
• password_hash() - creates a password hash
• password_needs_rehash() - checks if the given hash matches the given options. Useful to check if the hash conforms to your current technique/cost scheme allowing you to rehash if necessary
• password_verify() - verifies that a password matches a hash

At the moment these functions accept the PASSWORD_BCRYPT and PASSWORD_DEFAULT password constants, which are synonymous at the moment, the difference being that PASSWORD_DEFAULT "may change in newer PHP releases when newer, stronger hashing algorithms are supported." Using PASSWORD_DEFAULT and password_needs_rehash() on login (and rehashing if necessary) should ensure that your hashes are reasonably resilient to brute-force attacks with little to no work for you.

EDIT: I just realised that this is mentioned briefly in Robert K's answer. I'll leave this answer here since I think it provides a bit more information about how it works and the ease of use it provides for those who don't know security.

Answer 2

I found perfect topic on this matter here: https://crackstation.net/hashing-security.htm, I wanted you to get benefit from it, here is source code also that provided prevention against time-based attack also.

<?php
/*
 * Password hashing with PBKDF2.
 * Author: havoc AT defuse.ca
 * www: https://defuse.ca/php-pbkdf2.htm
 */

// These constants may be changed without breaking existing hashes.
define("PBKDF2_HASH_ALGORITHM", "sha256");
define("PBKDF2_ITERATIONS", 1000);
define("PBKDF2_SALT_BYTES", 24);
define("PBKDF2_HASH_BYTES", 24);

define("HASH_SECTIONS", 4);
define("HASH_ALGORITHM_INDEX", 0);
define("HASH_ITERATION_INDEX", 1);
define("HASH_SALT_INDEX", 2);
define("HASH_PBKDF2_INDEX", 3);

function create_hash($password)
{
    // format: algorithm:iterations:salt:hash
    $salt = base64_encode(mcrypt_create_iv(PBKDF2_SALT_BYTES, MCRYPT_DEV_URANDOM));
    return PBKDF2_HASH_ALGORITHM . ":" . PBKDF2_ITERATIONS . ":" .  $salt . ":" . 
        base64_encode(pbkdf2(
            PBKDF2_HASH_ALGORITHM,
            $password,
            $salt,
            PBKDF2_ITERATIONS,
            PBKDF2_HASH_BYTES,
            true
        ));
}

function validate_password($password, $good_hash)
{
    $params = explode(":", $good_hash);
    if(count($params) < HASH_SECTIONS)
       return false; 
    $pbkdf2 = base64_decode($params[HASH_PBKDF2_INDEX]);
    return slow_equals(
        $pbkdf2,
        pbkdf2(
            $params[HASH_ALGORITHM_INDEX],
            $password,
            $params[HASH_SALT_INDEX],
            (int)$params[HASH_ITERATION_INDEX],
            strlen($pbkdf2),
            true
        )
    );
}

// Compares two strings $a and $b in length-constant time.
function slow_equals($a, $b)
{
    $diff = strlen($a) ^ strlen($b);
    for($i = 0; $i < strlen($a) && $i < strlen($b); $i++)
    {
        $diff |= ord($a[$i]) ^ ord($b[$i]);
    }
    return $diff === 0; 
}

/*
 * PBKDF2 key derivation function as defined by RSA's PKCS #5: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2898.txt
 * $algorithm - The hash algorithm to use. Recommended: SHA256
 * $password - The password.
 * $salt - A salt that is unique to the password.
 * $count - Iteration count. Higher is better, but slower. Recommended: At least 1000.
 * $key_length - The length of the derived key in bytes.
 * $raw_output - If true, the key is returned in raw binary format. Hex encoded otherwise.
 * Returns: A $key_length-byte key derived from the password and salt.
 *
 * Test vectors can be found here: https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6070.txt
 *
 * This implementation of PBKDF2 was originally created by https://defuse.ca
 * With improvements by http://www.variations-of-shadow.com
 */
function pbkdf2($algorithm, $password, $salt, $count, $key_length, $raw_output = false)
{
    $algorithm = strtolower($algorithm);
    if(!in_array($algorithm, hash_algos(), true))
        die('PBKDF2 ERROR: Invalid hash algorithm.');
    if($count <= 0 || $key_length <= 0)
        die('PBKDF2 ERROR: Invalid parameters.');

    $hash_length = strlen(hash($algorithm, "", true));
    $block_count = ceil($key_length / $hash_length);

    $output = "";
    for($i = 1; $i <= $block_count; $i++) {
        // $i encoded as 4 bytes, big endian.
        $last = $salt . pack("N", $i);
        // first iteration
        $last = $xorsum = hash_hmac($algorithm, $last, $password, true);
        // perform the other $count - 1 iterations
        for ($j = 1; $j < $count; $j++) {
            $xorsum ^= ($last = hash_hmac($algorithm, $last, $password, true));
        }
        $output .= $xorsum;
    }

    if($raw_output)
        return substr($output, 0, $key_length);
    else
        return bin2hex(substr($output, 0, $key_length));
}
?>

Answer 3

SHA1 and a salt should suffice (depending, naturally, on whether you are coding something for Fort Knox or a login system for your shopping list) for the foreseeable future. If SHA1 isn't good enough for you, use SHA256.

The idea of a salt is to throw the hashing results off balance, so to say. It is known, for example, that the MD5-hash of an empty string is d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e. So, if someone with good enough a memory would see that hash and know that it's the hash of an empty string. But if the string is salted (say, with the string "MY_PERSONAL_SALT"), the hash for the 'empty string' (i.e. "MY_PERSONAL_SALT") becomes aeac2612626724592271634fb14d3ea6, hence non-obvious to backtrace. What I'm trying to say, that it's better to use any salt, than not to. Therefore, it's not too much of an importance to know which salt to use.

There are actually websites that do just this - you can feed it a (md5) hash, and it spits out a known plaintext that generates that particular hash. If you would get access to a database that stores plain md5-hashes, it would be trivial for you to enter the hash for the admin to such a service, and log in. But, if the passwords were salted, such a service would become ineffective.

Also, double-hashing is generally regarded as bad method, because it diminishes the result space. All popular hashes are fixed-length. Thus, you can have only a finite values of this fixed length, and the results become less varied. This could be regarded as another form of salting, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Answer 4

ok in the fitsy we need salt salt must be unique so let generate it

   /**
     * Generating string
     * @param $size
     * @return string
     */
    function Uniwur_string($size){
        $text = md5(uniqid(rand(), TRUE));
        RETURN substr($text, 0, $size);
    }

also we need the hash I`m using sha512 it is the best and it is in php

   /**
     * Hashing string
     * @param $string
     * @return string
     */
    function hash($string){
        return hash('sha512', $string);
    }

so now we can use this functions to generate safe password

// generating unique password
$password = Uniwur_string(20); // or you can add manual password
// generating 32 character salt
$salt = Uniwur_string(32);
// now we can manipulate this informations

// hashin salt for safe
$hash_salt = hash($salt);
// hashing password
$hash_psw = hash($password.$hash_salt);

now we need to save in database our $hash_psw variable value and $salt variable

and for authorize we will use same steps...

it is the best way to safe our clients passwords...

P.s. for last 2 steps you can use your own algorithm... but be sure that you can generate this hashed password in the future when you need to authorize user...

Answer 5

DISCLAIMER: This answer was written in 2008.

Since then, PHP has given us password_hash and password_verify and, since their introduction, they are the recommended password hashing & checking method.

The theory of the answer is still a good read though.

TL;DR

Don'ts

• Don't limit what characters users can enter for passwords. Only idiots do this.
• Don't limit the length of a password. If your users want a sentence with supercalifragilisticexpialidocious in it, don't prevent them from using it.
• Don't strip or escape HTML and special characters in the password.
• Never store your user's password in plain-text.
• Never email a password to your user except when they have lost theirs, and you sent a temporary one.
• Never, ever log passwords in any manner.
• Never hash passwords with SHA1 or MD5 or even SHA256! Modern crackers can exceed 60 and 180 billion hashes/second (respectively).
• Don't mix bcrypt and with the raw output of hash(), either use hex output or base64_encode it. (This applies to any input that may have a rogue \0 in it, which can seriously weaken security.)

Dos

• Use scrypt when you can; bcrypt if you cannot.
• Use PBKDF2 if you cannot use either bcrypt or scrypt, with SHA2 hashes.
• Reset everyone's passwords when the database is compromised.
• Implement a reasonable 8-10 character minimum length, plus require at least 1 upper case letter, 1 lower case letter, a number, and a symbol. This will improve the entropy of the password, in turn making it harder to crack. (See the "What makes a good password?" section for some debate.)

Why hash passwords anyway?

The objective behind hashing passwords is simple: preventing malicious access to user accounts by compromising the database. So the goal of password hashing is to deter a hacker or cracker by costing them too much time or money to calculate the plain-text passwords. And time/cost are the best deterrents in your arsenal.

Another reason that you want a good, robust hash on a user accounts is to give you enough time to change all the passwords in the system. If your database is compromised you will need enough time to at least lock the system down, if not change every password in the database.

Jeremiah Grossman, CTO of Whitehat Security, stated on White Hat Security blog after a recent password recovery that required brute-force breaking of his password protection:

Interestingly, in living out this nightmare, I learned A LOT I didn’t know about password cracking, storage, and complexity. I’ve come to appreciate why password storage is ever so much more important than password complexity. If you don’t know how your password is stored, then all you really can depend upon is complexity. This might be common knowledge to password and crypto pros, but for the average InfoSec or Web Security expert, I highly doubt it.

(Emphasis mine.)

What makes a good password anyway?

Entropy. (Not that I fully subscribe to Randall's viewpoint.)

In short, entropy is how much variation is within the password. When a password is only lowercase roman letters, that's only 26 characters. That isn't much variation. Alpha-numeric passwords are better, with 36 characters. But allowing upper and lower case, with symbols, is roughly 96 characters. That's a lot better than just letters. One problem is, to make our passwords memorable we insert patterns—which reduces entropy. Oops!

Password entropy is approximated easily. Using the full range of ascii characters (roughly 96 typeable characters) yields an entropy of 6.6 per character, which at 8 characters for a password is still too low (52.679 bits of entropy) for future security. But the good news is: longer passwords, and passwords with unicode characters, really increase the entropy of a password and make it harder to crack.

There's a longer discussion of password entropy on the Crypto StackExchange site. A good Google search will also turn up a lot of results.

In the comments I talked with @popnoodles, who pointed out that enforcing a password policy of X length with X many letters, numbers, symbols, etc, can actually reduce entropy by making the password scheme more predictable. I do agree. Randomess, as truly random as possible, is always the safest but least memorable solution.

So far as I've been able to tell, making the world's best password is a Catch-22. Either its not memorable, too predictable, too short, too many unicode characters (hard to type on a Windows/Mobile device), too long, etc. No password is truly good enough for our purposes, so we must protect them as though they were in Fort Knox.

Best practices

Bcrypt and scrypt are the current best practices. Scrypt will be better than bcrypt in time, but it hasn't seen adoption as a standard by Linux/Unix or by webservers, and hasn't had in-depth reviews of its algorithm posted yet. But still, the future of the algorithm does look promising. If you are working with Ruby there is an scrypt gem that will help you out, and Node.js now has its own scrypt package. You can use Scrypt in PHP either via the Scrypt extension or the Libsodium extension (both are available in PECL).

I highly suggest reading the documentation for the crypt function if you want to understand how to use bcrypt, or finding yourself a good wrapper or use something like PHPASS for a more legacy implementation. I recommend a minimum of 12 rounds of bcrypt, if not 15 to 18.

I changed my mind about using bcrypt when I learned that bcrypt only uses blowfish's key schedule, with a variable cost mechanism. The latter lets you increase the cost to brute-force a password by increasing blowfish's already expensive key schedule.

Average practices

I almost can't imagine this situation anymore. PHPASS supports PHP 3.0.18 through 5.3, so it is usable on almost every installation imaginable—and should be used if you don't know for certain that your environment supports bcrypt.

But suppose that you cannot use bcrypt or PHPASS at all. What then?

Try an implementation of PDKBF2 with the maximum number of rounds that your environment/application/user-perception can tolerate. The lowest number I'd recommend is 2500 rounds. Also, make sure to use hash_hmac() if it is available to make the operation harder to reproduce.

Future Practices

Coming in PHP 5.5 is a full password protection library that abstracts away any pains of working with bcrypt. While most of us are stuck with PHP 5.2 and 5.3 in most common environments, especially shared hosts, @ircmaxell has built a compatibility layer for the coming API that is backward compatible to PHP 5.3.7.

Cryptography Recap & Disclaimer

The computational power required to actually crack a hashed password doesn't exist. The only way for computers to "crack" a password is to recreate it and simulate the hashing algorithm used to secure it. The speed of the hash is linearly related to its ability to be brute-forced. Worse still, most hash algorithms can be easily parallelized to perform even faster. This is why costly schemes like bcrypt and scrypt are so important.

You cannot possibly foresee all threats or avenues of attack, and so you must make your best effort to protect your users up front. If you do not, then you might even miss the fact that you were attacked until it's too late... and you're liable. To avoid that situation, act paranoid to begin with. Attack your own software (internally) and attempt to steal user credentials, or modify other user's accounts or access their data. If you don't test the security of your system, then you cannot blame anyone but yourself.

Lastly: I am not a cryptographer. Whatever I've said is my opinion, but I happen to think it's based on good ol' common sense ... and lots of reading. Remember, be as paranoid as possible, make things as hard to intrude as possible, and then, if you are still worried, contact a white-hat hacker or cryptographer to see what they say about your code/system.

Answer 6

In the end, double-hashing, mathematically, provides no benefit. In practice, however, it is useful for preventing rainbow table-based attacks. In other words, it is of no more benefit than hashing with a salt, which takes far less processor time in your application or on your server.