Hi Roger, SCRAM uses the PBKDF2 mechanism, here's a comparison between PBKDF2 and bcrypt:
http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/4781/do-any-secu rity-experts-recommend-bcrypt-for-password-storage/6415#6415 It may be worth supporting bcrypt, but not sure it would make sense to do it in the context of SCRAM. A minor correction: the KIP includes SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-512 (not SCRAM-SHA-1). Ismael On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 10:49 PM, Roger Hoover <roger.hoo...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry for the late question but is there a reason to choose SHA-1 and > SHA-256 instead of bcrypt? > > https://codahale.com/how-to-safely-store-a-password/ > > On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 5:30 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > I think all the comments and suggestions on this thread have now been > > incorporated into the KIP. If there are no objections, I will start the > > voting process on Monday. > > > > Regards, > > > > Rajini > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 9:20 PM, Rajini Sivaram < > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Jun, > > > > > > Have added a sub-section on delegation token support to the KIP. > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 8:07 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > > > > >> Hi, Rajini, > > >> > > >> That makes sense. Could you document this potential future extension > in > > >> the > > >> KIP? > > >> > > >> Jun > > >> > > >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> rajinisiva...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Jun, > > >> > > > >> > 11. SCRAM messages have an optional extensions field which is a list > > of > > >> > key=value pairs. We can add an extension key to the first client > > >> message to > > >> > indicate delegation token. Broker can then obtain credentials and > > >> principal > > >> > using a different code path for delegation tokens. > > >> > > > >> > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Magnus, > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks for the input. If you don't feel strongly the need to bump > up > > >> the > > >> > > version of SaslHandshake, we can leave the version unchanged. > > >> > > > > >> > > Rajini, > > >> > > > > >> > > 11. Yes, we could send the HMAC as the SCRAM password for the > > >> delegation > > >> > > token. Do we need something to indicate that this SCRAM token is > > >> special > > >> > > (i.e., delegation token) so that we can generate the correct > > >> > > KafkaPrincipal? The delegation token logic can be added later. I > am > > >> > asking > > >> > > just so that we have enough in the design of SCRAM to add the > > >> delegation > > >> > > token logic later. > > >> > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > >> > > Jun > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 4:42 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com > > >> > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Hi Jun, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 10. *s=<salt>* and *i=<iterations>* come from the SCRAM standard > > >> (they > > >> > > are > > >> > > > transferred during SCRAM auth). Scram messages look like (for > > >> example) > > >> > > > *r=<nonce>,s=<salt>,i=<iterations>*. StoredKey and ServerKey > and > > >> not > > >> > > > transferred in SCRAM messages, so I picked two keys that are > > unused > > >> in > > >> > > > SCRAM. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > 11. SCRAM (like DIGEST-MD5 or PLAIN) uses a shared > secret/password > > >> for > > >> > > > authentication along with a username and an optional > > >> authorization-id. > > >> > > > Kafka uses the username as the identity (Kafka principal) for > > >> > > > authentication and authorization. KIP-48 doesn't mention > > >> KafkaPrincipal > > >> > > in > > >> > > > the section "Authentication using Token", but a delegation token > > is > > >> > > > associated with a Kafka principal. Since delegation tokens are > > >> acquired > > >> > > on > > >> > > > behalf of a KafkaPrincipal and the principal is included in the > > >> token > > >> > as > > >> > > > the token owner, clients authenticating with delegation tokens > > >> could > > >> > use > > >> > > > the token owner as username and the token HMAC as shared > > >> > secret/password. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > If necessary, any other form of token identifier may be used as > > >> > username > > >> > > as > > >> > > > well as long as it contains sufficient information for the > broker > > to > > >> > > > retrieve/compute the principal and HMAC for authentication. The > > >> server > > >> > > > callback handler can be updated when delegation tokens are > > >> implemented > > >> > to > > >> > > > generate Kafka principal accordingly. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Jun Rao <j...@confluent.io> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Hi, Rajini, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > A couple of other questions on the KIP. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 10. For the config values stored in ZK, are those keys (s, t, > k, > > >> i, > > >> > > etc) > > >> > > > > stored under scram-sha-256 standard? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > 11. Could KIP-48 (delegation token) use this KIP to send > > >> delegation > > >> > > > tokens? > > >> > > > > In KIP-48, the client sends a HMAC as the delegation token to > > the > > >> > > server. > > >> > > > > Not sure how this gets mapped to the username/password in this > > >> KIP. > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Thanks, > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > Jun > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 6:43 AM, Rajini Sivaram < > > >> > > > > rajinisiva...@googlemail.com > > >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > I have just created KIP-84 to add SCRAM-SHA-1 and > > SCRAM-SHA-256 > > >> > SASL > > >> > > > > > mechanisms to Kafka: > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP- > > >> > > > > > 84%3A+Support+SASL+SCRAM+mechanisms > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Comments and suggestions are welcome. > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Thank you... > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > Rajini > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > -- > > >> > > > Regards, > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Rajini > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Regards, > > >> > > > >> > Rajini > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > > > > Rajini > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Rajini > > >
