SHA512 vs. Blowfish and Bcrypt [closed]

Question

I'm looking at hashing algorithms, but couldn't find an answer.

• Bcrypt uses Blowfish
• Blowfish is better than MD5
• Q: but is Blowfish better than SHA512?

Thanks..

Update:

I want to clarify that I understand the difference between hashing and encryption. What prompted me to ask the question this way is this article, where the author refers to bcrypt as "adaptive hashing"

Since bcrypt is based on Blowfish, I was led to think that Blowfish is a hashing algorithm. If it's encryption as answers have pointed out, then seems to me like it shouldn't have a place in this article. What's worse is that he's concluding that bcrypt is the best. What's also confusing me now is that the phpass class (used for password hashing I believe) uses bcrypt (i.e. blowfish, i.e. encryption). Based on this new info you guys are telling me (blowfish is encryption), this class sounds wrong. Am I missing something?

Clavus

It's not wrong; see the updates to my answer for an explanation of how bcrypt works and why it serves the same purpose as a hash-based "one-way" algorithm. – Principle

bcrypt simply has a higher "work factor" by default. SHA is assumed not to...unless if you use passhash9, which can use either along with a work factor. why is this question closed? it's far from answered yet very important. – Scotia

Link in question is down............... – Lumumba

Answer 1

It should suffice to say whether bcrypt or SHA-512 (in the context of an appropriate algorithm like PBKDF2) is good enough. And the answer is yes, either algorithm is secure enough that a breach will occur through an implementation flaw, not cryptanalysis.

If you insist on knowing which is "better", SHA-512 has had in-depth reviews by NIST and others. It's good, but flaws have been recognized that, while not exploitable now, have led to the the SHA-3 competition for new hash algorithms. Also, keep in mind that the study of hash algorithms is "newer" than that of ciphers, and cryptographers are still learning about them.

Even though bcrypt as a whole hasn't had as much scrutiny as Blowfish itself, I believe that being based on a cipher with a well-understood structure gives it some inherent security that hash-based authentication lacks. Also, it is easier to use common GPUs as a tool for attacking SHA-2–based hashes; because of its memory requirements, optimizing bcrypt requires more specialized hardware like FPGA with some on-board RAM.

---

Note: bcrypt is an algorithm that uses Blowfish internally. It is not an encryption algorithm itself. It is used to irreversibly obscure passwords, just as hash functions are used to do a "one-way hash".

Cryptographic hash algorithms are designed to be impossible to reverse. In other words, given only the output of a hash function, it should take "forever" to find a message that will produce the same hash output. In fact, it should be computationally infeasible to find any two messages that produce the same hash value. Unlike a cipher, hash functions aren't parameterized with a key; the same input will always produce the same output.

If someone provides a password that hashes to the value stored in the password table, they are authenticated. In particular, because of the irreversibility of the hash function, it's assumed that the user isn't an attacker that got hold of the hash and reversed it to find a working password.

Now consider bcrypt. It uses Blowfish to encrypt a magic string, using a key "derived" from the password. Later, when a user enters a password, the key is derived again, and if the ciphertext produced by encrypting with that key matches the stored ciphertext, the user is authenticated. The ciphertext is stored in the "password" table, but the derived key is never stored.

In order to break the cryptography here, an attacker would have to recover the key from the ciphertext. This is called a "known-plaintext" attack, since the attack knows the magic string that has been encrypted, but not the key used. Blowfish has been studied extensively, and no attacks are yet known that would allow an attacker to find the key with a single known plaintext.

So, just like irreversible algorithms based cryptographic digests, bcrypt produces an irreversible output, from a password, salt, and cost factor. Its strength lies in Blowfish's resistance to known plaintext attacks, which is analogous to a "first pre-image attack" on a digest algorithm. Since it can be used in place of a hash algorithm to protect passwords, bcrypt is confusingly referred to as a "hash" algorithm itself.

Assuming that rainbow tables have been thwarted by proper use of salt, any truly irreversible function reduces the attacker to trial-and-error. And the rate that the attacker can make trials is determined by the speed of that irreversible "hash" algorithm. If a single iteration of a hash function is used, an attacker can make millions of trials per second using equipment that costs on the order of $1000, testing all passwords up to 8 characters long in a few months.

If however, the digest output is "fed back" thousands of times, it will take hundreds of years to test the same set of passwords on that hardware. Bcrypt achieves the same "key strengthening" effect by iterating inside its key derivation routine, and a proper hash-based method like PBKDF2 does the same thing; in this respect, the two methods are similar.

So, my recommendation of bcrypt stems from the assumptions 1) that a Blowfish has had a similar level of scrutiny as the SHA-2 family of hash functions, and 2) that cryptanalytic methods for ciphers are better developed than those for hash functions.

Principle

Thanks for the answer and comment. I was indeed asking for cryptanalysis reasons/rainbow tables, etc. But also I was under the impression that Blowfish was hashing not encryption as it used in the phpass class (a class used for password hashing I believe). I've updated my original post accordingly. – Clavus

+1 great post. But I have two questions. Blowfish was replaced by twofish more than a decade ago, shouldn't a system utilize modern primitives? Also thousands of iterations seems wasteful in systems such as web applications where many people are logging in at any given moment. For instance PBKDF2 is only implemented in scenarios when 1 person is logging on at a time, such as a string2key function for an encrypted filesystem. I use the adage "If its too heavy for the attacker to lift, then its too heavy for your server." What do you think? – Cyclopentane

I don't think there's anything wrong with using a more modern primitive. Vulnerabilities are often discovered with the passage of time, and Twofish was developed using knowledge gained from Blowfish. However, I'm not aware of specific vulnerabilities that would invalidate use of Blowfish, so a "if-it-ain't-broke" argument could be made too. Your adage about attackers doesn't sound good to me. Even if you choose an algorithm that would require years for an attacker to test a billion passwords, it will consume a negligible fraction of time in a legitimate application. – Principle

@Principle The following sentence is just plain misleading: "Unlike a cipher, hash functions aren't parameterized with a key; the same input will always produce the same output." While a salt isn't a key, the whole point of a salt is that using a different salt will cause the same string to hash to a different value. – Medlar

If you look at the specification of any hash function, you will not see anything about "salt". The only parameter is the message to be digested. Review the specification of any cipher, and you will see that the function is parameterized with a key. The "salt" which may (or may not) be used in conjunction with a hash is simply part of the message. The hash algorithm doesn't require it, doesn't treat it specially, and cannot differentiate it from the rest of the message. So, while it is true that messages are often altered by salting, a given message produces only one hash. – Principle

@Rook why do you state that "PBKDF2 is only implemented in scenarios when 1 person is logging on at a time, such as a string2key function for an encrypted filesystem."? – Photoflash

@Principle what about BLAKE2? That mentions salt quite a few times. – Exudate

@Rook Regarding the comment about "thousands of iterations" seeming wasteful, the high cost of producing hashes with these algorithms (BCrypt or PBKDF2/SHA-512) is what makes them desirable for password hashing. As erickson replied, this is an acceptable cost for the server; a necessary evil. Understand that this might open a DOS attack vector. An attacker could flood the server with enough login attempts that legitimate users are locked out. Throttling login attempts can help mitigate this, but then you have a different DOS vector where specific users might be locked out. Security is hard. – Vernalize

@Andre D As a pentester I report applications that lock accounts, and i Report applications that do not prevent against brute force. Ideally an offending IP address must solve a captcha, additionally if a user name is targeted (even if that username doesn't exists) then that account should solve a captcha before authenticating. Enforcing a ratelimit of X per minute is also acceptable. Related: security.stackexchange.com/questions/25444/… – Cyclopentane

@Cyclopentane : while ratelimiting applications is good practice you may assume in this case that the database has been downloaded and placed on equipment that does not have the rate limit you describe. – Coacervate

@Ellert van Koperen My concern was Application Denial of Service, which is a serious concern for PBKDF2 because it doesn't have a max string length. – Cyclopentane

@Cyclopentane I'm not clear what you are saying. Are you worried about the amount of CPU time spent when a very long password is attempted on an application using PBKDF2 authentication? I don't think time scales very quickly with password length relative to how it scales with iteration count. In any case, the application can impose a maximum password length restriction, just as it should impose a minimum length and other selection criteria. If that's not what you meant, please clarify. – Principle

@Principle I think you're confusing known-plaintext. A "known-plaintext attack" is where the unencrypted message is known by the attacker. But the unencrypted message - the password in this case - is not known; it is the subject of the attack. – Elisaelisabet

@SamuelJaeschke No, the plain text I refer to is known: "OrpheanBeholderScryDoubt". It's part of the bcrypt specification. To recover the password, the attacker would have to find the key used to encrypt "OrpheanBeholderScryDoubt" to result in the stored hash. Then they would have to find the password from which that key can be derived. – Principle

Answer 2

I agree with erickson's answer, with one caveat: for password authentication purposes, bcrypt is far better than a single iteration of SHA-512 - simply because it is far slower. If you don't get why slowness is an advantage in this particular game, read the article you linked to again (scroll down to "Speed is exactly what you don’t want in a password hash function.").

You can of course build a secure password hashing algorithm around SHA-512 by iterating it thousands of times, just like the way PHK's MD5 algorithm works. Ulrich Drepper did exactly this, for glibc's crypt(). There's no particular reason to do this, though, if you already have a tested bcrypt implementation available.

Nafis

Hopefully my answer makes it clear that a single hash iteration is not sufficient (sadly, even this rudimentary level of knowledge cannot be assumed). "If a single iteration of a hash function is used, an attacker can make millions of trials per second using equipment that costs on the order of $1000, testing all passwords up to 8 characters long in a few months. If however, the digest output is 'fed back' thousands of times, it will take hundreds of years to test the same set of passwords on that hardware. Bcrypt achieves the same 'key strengthening' effect by iterating…" – Principle

@erickson: Yes, although I think you might have buried the lede there. The point I was trying to make is that a direct comparison of bcrypt and SHA-512 isn't really relevant, because one is a key derivation function and the other is just a cryptographic primitive, unsuitable on its own. – Nafis

codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password – Huppah

Using thousands of rounds of SHA-512 is not unheard of and given its inclusion in various crypt implementations (including in PHP which I use), when I read the original question I even assumed that's what the OP meant when he asked about SHA-512 - that he was actually referring to thousands of rounds of SHA-512 vs bcrypt which uses hundreds or thousands of iterations itself. – Massy

Answer 3

Blowfish is not a hashing algorithm. It's an encryption algorithm. What that means is that you can encrypt something using blowfish, and then later on you can decrypt it back to plain text.

SHA512 is a hashing algorithm. That means that (in theory) once you hash the input you can't get the original input back again.

They're 2 different things, designed to be used for different tasks. There is no 'correct' answer to "is blowfish better than SHA512?" You might as well ask "are apples better than kangaroos?"

If you want to read some more on the topic here's some links:

• Blowfish
• SHA512

Fortuneteller

I think the question is about using bcrypt as an irreversible protection for passwords, much as hashing is used for that purpose. – Principle

@Principle the text "Q: but is Blowfish better than SHA512?" seems pretty clear to me and shows that the OP doesn't understand the differences between the 2 algorithms – Fortuneteller

OP here. Actually, based on Glen's asnwer that blowfish is an encryption algorithm (which I understand is different from hashing), I realize now that my question yes was confused. What's confusing now though is that the phpass class (used for password hashing I believe) uses bcrypt (i.e. blowfish, i.e. encryption). If blowfish is encryption, how come phpass uses it to hash passwords, seems like a flaw to me, no? Am I missing something? – Clavus

however the question asks which of apples and kangaroos are better suited to a specific task. Blowfish is a better hashing function than sha because of the time ittakes to hash. Most implementations of sha i've seen are very fast. You want a slow algorithm for password hashing. – Fireweed

This answer is correct that Blowfish is an encryption algorithm, but in this context (eg, when used in bcrypt) it is used as a hashing algorithm by deriving a key from the source string and using that to encrypt a magic number. This makes it irreversible, essentially a hashing function. You cannot calculate the key from a cipher, even if you know the plaintext and encrypted data. – Massy

In regards to speed of operation, when you use SHA-512 for password hashing you want to use thousands of rounds of it, not a single round. – Massy

@Massy why not? I'm not totally following you. My understanding of what you said is that it derives a key from a string and uses it to encrypt a magic number (which it gets where??), but then even if you have that same starting string you can't arrive at the same key again....? What? I know I'm misunderstanding since that makes no sense-- if, given the same password, you couldn't arrive at the same hash, obviously bcrypt wouldn't be useful. – Purge

Normally, to encrypt something with blowfish you start with a message you want to encrypt, and a special key you want to encrypt it with, and the end result is an encrypted message that can only be decrypted by the person who generated the key. If you know the original message, you can't use it to find what the key was. When it's used as a makeshift hashing algorithm, therefore, you can use the string you wish to hash as the key, and you just use a "magic number" (a publicly known string) as the message you're encrypting. That way, there is no way to arrive back at the string you hashed. – Massy

So this is how you turn an encryption algorithm into a one-way hash. Given that the "message" is always constant, it's a well known string, the same encryption key will always result in the same encrypted message, but you can't reverse it to get the encryption key back. – Massy

Answer 4

Blowfish isn't better than MD5 or SHA512, as they serve different purposes. MD5 and SHA512 are hashing algorithms, Blowfish is an encryption algorithm. Two entirely different cryptographic functions.

Abscond

Answer 5

I would recommend Ulrich Drepper's SHA-256/SHA-512 based crypt implementation.

We ported these algorithms to Java, and you can find a freely licensed version of them at ftp://ftp.arlut.utexas.edu/java_hashes/.

Note that most modern (L)Unices support Drepper's algorithm in their /etc/shadow files.

Hatty

PWDTK sourceforge.net/projects/pwdtknet uses HMAC-SHA512 however it does so over many iterations to create "slowness" aka Key Stretching as others here have been talking about. BCrypt is better than a single SHA-512 as has been mentioned, however if you use SHA-512 in something like PBKDF2 then you are well secure (As long as you are using a large crypto-random salt and enough iterations to force time to make a rainbow table) the API I just posted is built by me and will do what you want in .NET if that is what you are developing for (For future readers benefit) – Grow