From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46F5A1FF0C0 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:40:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8A5B52160C; Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:40:02 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2026 16:39:46 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH docs v2 2/2] pveum: document that the pve realm now uses yescrypt To: "Maximiliano Sandoval" X-Mailer: aerc 0.20.0 References: <20261021113808.233146-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <20261021113808.233146-3-s.sterz@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: From: "Shannon Sterz" X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1792593586341 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.579 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) POISEN_SPAM_PILL 0.1 Meta: its spam POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3 0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: PAXGLSUAUSJJUVMHJMW3E26HLQ23MDHB X-Message-ID-Hash: PAXGLSUAUSJJUVMHJMW3E26HLQ23MDHB X-MailFrom: s.sterz@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On Wed Oct 21, 2026 at 3:57 PM CEST, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: -->8 snip 8<-- >> +`/etc/pve/priv/shadow.cfg`. Passwords are hashed and salted using the y= escrypt >> +algorithm footnote:[yescrypt https://www.openwall.com/yescrypt/]. It pr= ovides >> +strong protections against offline password cracking attempts. This rea= lm is the > > nit: Perhaps /protections/protection/? No protections is right. It offers tunable hardness for all three the runtime, memory usage and parallelism. So I'd say those are multiple protections. > >> +most convenient realm for small-scale (or even mid-scale) installations= , where >> +users do not need access to anything outside of {pve}. In this case, us= ers are >> +fully managed by {pve} and are able to change their own passwords via t= he GUI. >> + >> +NOTE: Passwords created with older versions of Proxmox VE used a hashi= ng scheme > > nit: This should be '{pve}' rather than 'Proxmox VE '. Yep will update this for a potential v3. Same for the related PMG patch. > >> +based on SHA-256 that is now considered insecure. If the file > > nit: By whom? Is there any good source to link here? > > The default processing cost parameter is 5000, which is too low for mod= ern > hardware. > > - man 5 crypt We never modified the default of 5000. So technically if you want to capture all nuances here, the function itself *could* still be fine. However, the way we used it wasn't (incidentally, SHA-256 is still used by yescrypt, just in a different construction). I'll add that to the commit message of the first patch for more clarity, but I think for the docs the text is fine as-is. What's important for users is that if they see a `$5$` in that file, they should log in again or, alternatively, set a new password (e.g. by having an admin account set a new password for that account). Note that PDM and PBS already use yescrypt for that reason [1]. [1]: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20240306123609.164021-7-s.sterz@proxmox.c= om/ -->8 snip 8<--