# Salt, pepper and rainbows — storing passwords properly

Let’s first consider the example where we simply store users’ passwords in plaintext (that is, if a user’s password is abc123 we store abc123 in the database). Consider the following set of users.

User1 abc abc
User2 abc abc
User3 abd abd
User4 def def

Obviously anyone who gains access to this database will have all the login details for all users immediately. The site owners always need to be able to tell whether a user knows the correct password, so all we can do is obscure the process of calculating a user’s password from their database data.

(Aside: encrypting the database with a secret key could be seen as a solution; however, the majority of web attacks are done through the likes of SQL injection vulnerabilities, which execute at a level at which the database can be read in a decrypted form.)

A good first step is to apply a public, well-tested hash function to the passwords in the database, and store the password hashes rather than the passwords themselves. A hash function is a one-way function; that is, is it easy to perform one way (i.e. turning the password into the hash), but hard or impossible to do the reverse (i.e. turning the hash into the password). Since hashing algorithms map to a fixed-length string, there are guaranteed to be hash collisions and so it is often impossible to know the original text given the hash. For this example I am going to use the SHA1 algorithm, which is conveniently built into many web programming languages including PHP. Our database would now look as follows.

User1 abc a9993e364706816aba3e25717850c26c9cd0d89d
User2 abc a9993e364706816aba3e25717850c26c9cd0d89d
User3 abd cb4cc28df0fdbe0ecf9d9662e294b118092a5735
User4 def 589c22335a381f122d129225f5c0ba3056ed5811

To the human eye this would probably be good enough. Also, note that although User2 and User3 have very similar (but not identical) passwords, their hashes are completely different. (As a rule of thumb, changing one bit of data in the plaintext should flip approximately 50% of the bits of the resulting hash.) However, there are still a couple of caveats:

• Anyone looking at the database would know that User1 and User2 have the same password.
• Databases using popular hashing algorithms are still vulnerable to rainbow tables. These are huge tables holding the result of hashing every possible string, often up to a certain number of characters. For example, the rainbow table available here for SHA1 hashes of lowercase letters, numbers and spaces up to 9 characters is already 52GB! Anyone with a hash could run it through such a rainbow table and come up with possible sources for that hash.

Rainbow tables are only useful when someone has gone to the bother of generating them, which means that obscure or self-coded hashing algorithms will likely not have a rainbow table against which they can be looked up. However, such algorithms are not likely to be mathematically rigorous enough to be considered a strong hash function, which is bad news if you’re a big target like Google.

A way to protect against rainbow table attacks is to ensure that the number of characters in the plaintexts are not included in the rainbow table’s domain. For example, in the example above, the 52GB rainbow table only worked when the passwords were 9 characters or less — so anything above 9 characters would be invulnerable to this current rainbow table. And since it’s extremely low overhead to hash something as short as a string of text, we might as well add, say, 10 characters to each password. (In practice you would want to do more than this, but I want to fit everything on the page!) A common string of characters that we concatenate with every password is called a salt. Let’s take our salt as abcdefghij. Then, for example, the first entry in the database will be the result of applying the SHA1 function to abcabcdefghij.

User1 abc abcdefghij 0143aa54b192a3db577861c54d60486920634b28
User2 abc abcdefghij 0143aa54b192a3db577861c54d60486920634b28
User3 abd abcdefghij 03c313d4f74ab4d53a7312f42ca1287938169aed
User4 def abcdefghij 5d4b46aa07beb42a8057f1913e70e8d9e53bdbc7

Note that User1 and User2 still have the same stored password. While we assume that the salt will also be compromised if the database is, all existing rainbow tables will be worthless. However, if the target was high-value, a new rainbow table could be constructed to work explicitly for this database. Since the overhead of each SHA1 operation is very low, we might as well slow down any would-be crackers by performing it recursively many times, say 40961. This will represent no slowdown to us, but to an attacker it will slow down the creation of the rainbow table 4096-fold. We now have the following data.

User1 abc abcdefghij 1cf0c7f82fa8dbbb3e68b96130d33b8defaf1791
User2 abc abcdefghij 1cf0c7f82fa8dbbb3e68b96130d33b8defaf1791
User3 abd abcdefghij 63480fa579f5a067db0254771ba13bdc6534503b
User4 def abcdefghij 9a19325b82d0a8d6a3748c71d6e4d767e4a3fb14

We still have the problem that User1 and User2 can be identified as having the same password. So, as well as having the database-wide salt to obscure our data from rainbow tables, we add a pepper to obscure each entry from each other. (In practice, an attacker would have to create a separate rainbow table for every entry they wanted to crack!) With the peppers listed below, we now have the following final data.

User1 abc abcdefghij qwertyuiop e27cb9a5f3973a5d173f6d5da95565ca668f3fea
User2 abc abcdefghij asdfghjklp b0c8d626936e30a7b7561be5ad4384e43454ab04
User3 abd abcdefghij zxcvbnmkop 7ed2c4d59f006c5d321f653cb1a98ec8cf8e6a8d
User4 def abcdefghij 1q2w3e4r5t 265f5ac148f1242c8af4ee2e70dcbe077519a3f7

And now we finally have our solution! The same plaintexts now hash to different values, as their individual peppers are different.

There are some additional measures we could take to increase the security of the system as a whole.

• Hash the user’s password client-side using JavaScript or similar so that the server never “sees” the original password. This will prevent a passive man in the middle attack. (While we’re at it, we may as well salt the hash.)
• Use a session-encryption technology like https. Such a technique is required to prevent active MITM attacks, as additional layers of JavaScript will only provide obscurity rather than security if an attacker can change a page’s or script’s content in transit to the user.

If the above wall of text proved difficult to follow, the process is pictured below.

The site owner would take the data provided by the user, run it through this process, and compare the result with the data stored in the database. If they match, the password the user originally entered must have been correct. All this can be done by the owner with absolutely minimal computational overhead. Are you paying attention, Sony?

1. This is the number of rounds of hashing performed by the WPA algorithm, which takes the SSID of the access point as its salt.