You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@brooklyn.apache.org by Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> on 2015/06/25 16:39:44 UTC
Password hash changes
All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
break in backwards compatibility.
This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an answer.
The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
The options are:
1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their password
hashes.
2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm. Warn
the user they need to update.
3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
What are people's opinions?
Richard.
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Alex Heneveld <al...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
#1
This is already in the release notes btw thx to Sam.
Best
Alex
On 28 Jun 2015 02:00, "Hadrian Zbarcea" <hz...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think #1 is the better option. I am personally reluctant to even
> consider #2.
>
> $0.02,
> Hadrian
>
>
> On 06/25/2015 10:43 AM, Andrea Turli wrote:
>
>> I'm in favor of 1. Of course 2 will be ok as well.
>>
>> Best,
>> Andrea
>>
>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 16:41 Martin Harris <
>> martin.harris@cloudsoftcorp.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'd say '2' for now, then '1' in the next release
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> M
>>>
>>> On 25 June 2015 at 15:39, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
>>>>
>>>> PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
>>>> ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
>>>> break in backwards compatibility.
>>>>
>>>> This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an
>>>>
>>> answer.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
>>>> hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users
>>>> with
>>>> hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
>>>>
>>>> The options are:
>>>>
>>>> 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their
>>>>
>>> password
>>>
>>>> hashes.
>>>> 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm.
>>>>
>>> Warn
>>>
>>>> the user they need to update.
>>>> 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
>>>>
>>>> What are people's opinions?
>>>>
>>>> Richard.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Harris
>>> Lead Software Engineer
>>> Cloudsoft Corporation Ltd
>>> www.cloudsoftcorp.com
>>> Mobile: +44 (0)7989 047-855
>>>
>>> --
>>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>>
>>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
>>> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
>>> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
>>> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure.
>>> Cloudsoft
>>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to
>>> this
>>> message after it was sent.
>>>
>>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
>>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
>>> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
>>> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
>>> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the
>>> recipient
>>> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>>>
>>>
>>
--
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Hadrian Zbarcea <hz...@gmail.com>.
I think #1 is the better option. I am personally reluctant to even
consider #2.
$0.02,
Hadrian
On 06/25/2015 10:43 AM, Andrea Turli wrote:
> I'm in favor of 1. Of course 2 will be ok as well.
>
> Best,
> Andrea
>
> On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 16:41 Martin Harris <ma...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I'd say '2' for now, then '1' in the next release
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> M
>>
>> On 25 June 2015 at 15:39, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
>>>
>>> PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
>>> ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
>>> break in backwards compatibility.
>>>
>>> This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an
>> answer.
>>>
>>> The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
>>> hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
>>> hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
>>>
>>> The options are:
>>>
>>> 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their
>> password
>>> hashes.
>>> 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm.
>> Warn
>>> the user they need to update.
>>> 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
>>>
>>> What are people's opinions?
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Harris
>> Lead Software Engineer
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Ltd
>> www.cloudsoftcorp.com
>> Mobile: +44 (0)7989 047-855
>>
>> --
>> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
>> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>>
>> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
>> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
>> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
>> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
>> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
>> message after it was sent.
>>
>> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
>> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
>> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
>> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
>> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
>> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>>
>
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Andrea Turli <an...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
I'm in favor of 1. Of course 2 will be ok as well.
Best,
Andrea
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 16:41 Martin Harris <ma...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:
> I'd say '2' for now, then '1' in the next release
>
> Cheers
>
> M
>
> On 25 June 2015 at 15:39, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
> >
> > PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
> > ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
> > break in backwards compatibility.
> >
> > This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an
> answer.
> >
> > The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
> > hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
> > hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
> >
> > The options are:
> >
> > 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their
> password
> > hashes.
> > 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm.
> Warn
> > the user they need to update.
> > 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
> >
> > What are people's opinions?
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Harris
> Lead Software Engineer
> Cloudsoft Corporation Ltd
> www.cloudsoftcorp.com
> Mobile: +44 (0)7989 047-855
>
> --
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
> message after it was sent.
>
> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
--
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>.
I should also make it clear that if code changes are needed, then someone
will need to do the code changes, and hopefully ASAP :-)
Richard.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:41 Martin Harris <ma...@cloudsoftcorp.com>
wrote:
> I'd say '2' for now, then '1' in the next release
>
> Cheers
>
> M
>
> On 25 June 2015 at 15:39, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
> >
> > PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
> > ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
> > break in backwards compatibility.
> >
> > This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an
> answer.
> >
> > The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
> > hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
> > hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
> >
> > The options are:
> >
> > 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their
> password
> > hashes.
> > 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm.
> Warn
> > the user they need to update.
> > 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
> >
> > What are people's opinions?
> >
> > Richard.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Harris
> Lead Software Engineer
> Cloudsoft Corporation Ltd
> www.cloudsoftcorp.com
> Mobile: +44 (0)7989 047-855
>
> --
> Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
> Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
>
> This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
> the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
> the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
> from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
> Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
> message after it was sent.
>
> Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
> viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
> onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
> will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
> accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
> should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
>
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Martin Harris <ma...@cloudsoftcorp.com>.
I'd say '2' for now, then '1' in the next release
Cheers
M
On 25 June 2015 at 15:39, Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
>
> PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
> ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
> break in backwards compatibility.
>
> This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an answer.
>
> The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
> hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
> hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
>
> The options are:
>
> 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their password
> hashes.
> 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm. Warn
> the user they need to update.
> 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
>
> What are people's opinions?
>
> Richard.
>
--
Martin Harris
Lead Software Engineer
Cloudsoft Corporation Ltd
www.cloudsoftcorp.com
Mobile: +44 (0)7989 047-855
--
Cloudsoft Corporation Limited, Registered in Scotland No: SC349230.
Registered Office: 13 Dryden Place, Edinburgh, EH9 1RP
This e-mail message is confidential and for use by the addressee only. If
the message is received by anyone other than the addressee, please return
the message to the sender by replying to it and then delete the message
from your computer. Internet e-mails are not necessarily secure. Cloudsoft
Corporation Limited does not accept responsibility for changes made to this
message after it was sent.
Whilst all reasonable care has been taken to avoid the transmission of
viruses, it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that the
onward transmission, opening or use of this message and any attachments
will not adversely affect its systems or data. No responsibility is
accepted by Cloudsoft Corporation Limited in this regard and the recipient
should carry out such virus and other checks as it considers appropriate.
Re: Password hash changes
Posted by Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org>.
To chip in with my own opinion - Brooklyn is in beta, and I believe that
password hashes did not exist in our last GA release of 0.6.0. Therefore a
user going from 0.6.0 GA to 0.7.0 GA would not notice the issue. Only
someone who had been using the 0.7.0-M1/M2 or -SNAPSHOT builds would be
affected. Could we take no further action (other than the release notes,
since they're easy) and still be in compliance with our own code
deprecation policy?
Richard.
On Thu, 25 Jun 2015 at 15:39 Richard Downer <ri...@apache.org> wrote:
> All, but in particular @alasdairhodge, @grkvlt and @ahgittin:
>
> PR #687 "Tweak PasswordHasher to avoid potentially misleading use of
> ByteBuffer.array()" has an unresolved discussion around this potential
> break in backwards compatibility.
>
> This question is blocking the release, so we should come up with an answer.
>
> The issue is a recent change in the password hashing algorithm. Password
> hashes from before and after the change are not compatible, so users with
> hashed passwords in their brooklyn.properties must regenerate them.
>
> The options are:
>
> 1 - document in the release notes that users must regenerate their
> password hashes.
> 2 - change the code to try both old and new variants of the algorithm.
> Warn the user they need to update.
> 3 - supply an upgrade tool (haven't checked if this is feasible)
>
> What are people's opinions?
>
> Richard.
>
>