I stumbled across BCrypt.net after reading Jeff Atwood's post about storing passwords which led me to Thomas Ptacek's recommendation to use BCrypt to store passwords. Which finally led me to this C# implementation of BCrypt
In the comments on the last link above someone asked "Why do GenerateSalt(30) take for ever, but GenerateSalt(31) seems to take no time at all?"
I ran BCrypt.HashPassword(password, BCrypt.GenerateSalt(31)) and got my result in 0 milliseconds.
I've been running BCrypt.HashPassword("password", BCrypt.GenerateSalt(30)) for over 5 minutes now and still do not have a result.
I realize we'll probably not need a randomly generated 30 character salt to create our password hashes (or irreversible encryption in BCrypt's case) for years. EDIT I should have read the code a bit, logRounds doesn't have anything to do with the salt length. Thanks Aaronaught.
So, why does GenerateSalt(31) return a value almost instantly (when it should take about twice as long as GenerateSalt(30)?
UPDATE
here is the fix:
private byte[] CryptRaw(byte[] password, byte[] salt, int logRounds) {
// ... snip ...
uint rounds = 1U << logRounds;
// ... snip
}
I suspect that the bug is here:
When you specify 31 for the
logRounds
, it computes that as 2^32, which can't fit in anint
and overflows, so the hash is actually done in... er, zero passes. The author should have useduint
instead. Easy to fix!Also wanted to comment on this:
Note that the
logRounds
parameter does not refer to the number of characters/bytes in the salt, which is always 16. It refers to the logarithmic base of the number of passes that the hash will take to compute; in other words it's a way to make bcrypt scale with Moore's Law, making the function several orders of magnitude more expensive to compute if computers ever get fast enough to crack existing hashes.If hashing with
GenerateSalt(31)
returns almost instantly, that's a bug. You should report that upstream (I have, for jBCrypt). :-)By default, the log-rounds is 10. This means that (if I remember correctly), 1024 rounds is used. Each time you increment the log-rounds, the number of rounds is doubled.
At 30 log-rounds, you're doing 1073741824 rounds. That rightfully takes a long time. At 31 log-rounds, 2147483648 rounds should be being done, but I suspect that the particular implementation you're using overflows instead. :-(