Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: "Sami Vaaraniemi" <samivanospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 17:44:24 +0200
Yes, I agree. It does give a level of protection as users tend to use the
same or similar passwords on multiple sites.
Regards,
Sami
"Phil Lee" <phil.lee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:%23nVKiZqFGHA.1288@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sami,
>
> As you say an MD5 hashed password in the UsernameToken is a password
> itself (or password equivalent).
>
> The reason for further hashing and salting the already hashed password is
> to make offline dictionary attacks more difficult if someone manages to
> steal the database. See
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwse/html/securusernametoken.asp
>
> There are dictionaries of pre-hashed common passwords available which
> means discovering passwords from non-salted password hashes is easy if
> you have the database. This is why salting and iterative hashing is used.
>
> If someone has stolen your database why bother about them getting the
> passwords? Because people tend to use the same password on more than one
> site, so you are preventing the hacker getting easy access to more sites.
>
> The reason for hashing the password on the client is to provide a simple
> level of protection if someone hacks inside your secure channel (which is
> encrypted of course) and can get access to the unencrypted data. If this
> happens then your pretty stuffed though.
>
> Phil
>
>
> "Sami Vaaraniemi" <samivanospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:OfRKzqpFGHA.3100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Steven Cheng[MSFT]" <stcheng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:BERz8onEGHA.3764@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Thanks for your response Phil,
>>>
>>> Yes, storing password hash is the best practice... However, the
>>> cleartext
>>> mentioned here is just what the value which is used to construct the
>>> UsernameToken at clientside... Because when it used usernametoken or
>>> derived token to encrypte or sign the message, we'll need the original
>>> cleartext value to construct the token key and decrypte the message....
>>> Thus, if your custom security database stores only password hash, you
>>> need
>>> to also use hashed password text to construct the username token...
>>
>> Note that if you hash the password in the client by giving the hashed
>> password to UsernameToken, then the hashed password *becomes the
>> password*. If you do this, then IMO it is pointless to store the password
>> hash in the database.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Sami
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Steven Cheng
>>> Microsoft Online Support
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Phil Lee
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Pablo Cibraro
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Steven Cheng[MSFT]
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Phil Lee
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Steven Cheng[MSFT]
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Sami Vaaraniemi
- Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- From: Phil Lee
- hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- Prev by Date: Re: WSE2 to WSE3, what to do with the pipeline ?
- Next by Date: Re: WSE2 to WSE3, what to do with the pipeline ?
- Previous by thread: Re: hashed password and UsernameTokenManager
- Next by thread: Re: How to decrypt soap envelop at the client side
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|