Related
In a web application I am reading some bytes from /dev/urandom to get a random salt for hashing the passwords.
Is it good to base64 the salt before hashing? Because base64 encoding sometimes appends some = at the end, which could then result in a known plaintext attack.
But it may be no problem, because the salt is nevertheless stored in db, or am I wrong?
Does this have an effect on the security of the application?
For the most part, probably not. Your salt has to be known in order to decrypt the password, so we can assume that any attacker will be able to gain both the hashed password and the salt used. All that your salt is now protecting against is rainbow table-based attacks and increasing the amount of work (since each plaintext now needs to be hashed n times instead of once to compare against n passwords).
As long as your salt is of a reasonable length, you're probably fine.
It depends on the used hash algorithm, which alphabet of characters is accepted as salt. BCrypt for example will accept following characters, which is nearly but not exactly the same as a base64 encoded text:
./0123456789ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.
A known plain text attack is no problem here, since we do not encrypt anything, especially not the salt.
No it's not secure.
You shouldn't use any hash function for user passwords. Instead you should use a password-based key derivation function such as PBKDF2 or scrypt with an appropriate number of iterations so as to slow down hashing, which mitigates the risk of bruteforce attacks.
What's the difference between a Key Derivation Function and a Password-Hash?
If you are using PHP for your web application:
Do I need base64 encode my salt (for hashing passwords)?
Secure hash and salt for PHP passwords
The purpose of a salt is to make sure that each password is stored differently. i.e. so if two people use the same password, the storage of the two passwords is not identical. This protects against rainbow and hashtable attacks if an attacker manages to extract the password table data.
Although there is no reason to Base64 it - the hash should be a sequence of bytes rather than ASCII text - this should not affect the security of your hashed passwords. Yes, there are limited byte sequences that will be used (just ones that represent valid ASCII characters), however your hash will be longer and it is representing the same range of possible values.
Coda Hale's article "How To Safely Store a Password" claims that:
bcrypt has salts built-in to prevent rainbow table attacks.
He cites this paper, which says that in OpenBSD's implementation of bcrypt:
OpenBSD generates the 128-bit bcrypt salt from an arcfour
(arc4random(3)) key stream, seeded with random data the kernel
collects from device timings.
I don't understand how this can work. In my conception of a salt:
It needs to be different for each stored password, so that a separate rainbow table would have to be generated for each
It needs to be stored somewhere so that it's repeatable: when a user tries to log in, we take their password attempt, repeat the same salt-and-hash procedure we did when we originally stored their password, and compare
When I'm using Devise (a Rails login manager) with bcrypt, there is no salt column in the database, so I'm confused. If the salt is random and not stored anywhere, how can we reliably repeat the hashing process?
In short, how can bcrypt have built-in salts?
This is bcrypt:
Generate a random salt. A "cost" factor has been pre-configured. Collect a password.
Derive an encryption key from the password using the salt and cost factor. Use it to encrypt a well-known string. Store the cost, salt, and cipher text. Because these three elements have a known length, it's easy to concatenate them and store them in a single field, yet be able to split them apart later.
When someone tries to authenticate, retrieve the stored cost and salt. Derive a key from the input password, cost and salt. Encrypt the same well-known string. If the generated cipher text matches the stored cipher text, the password is a match.
Bcrypt operates in a very similar manner to more traditional schemes based on algorithms like PBKDF2. The main difference is its use of a derived key to encrypt known plain text; other schemes (reasonably) assume the key derivation function is irreversible, and store the derived key directly.
Stored in the database, a bcrypt "hash" might look something like this:
$2a$10$vI8aWBnW3fID.ZQ4/zo1G.q1lRps.9cGLcZEiGDMVr5yUP1KUOYTa
This is actually three fields, delimited by "$":
2a identifies the bcrypt algorithm version that was used.
10 is the cost factor; 210 iterations of the key derivation function are used (which is not enough, by the way. I'd recommend a cost of 12 or more.)
vI8aWBnW3fID.ZQ4/zo1G.q1lRps.9cGLcZEiGDMVr5yUP1KUOYTa is the salt and the cipher text, concatenated and encoded in a modified Base-64. The first 22 characters decode to a 16-byte value for the salt. The remaining characters are cipher text to be compared for authentication.
This example is taken from the documentation for Coda Hale's ruby implementation.
I believe that phrase should have been worded as follows:
bcrypt has salts built into the generated hashes to prevent rainbow table attacks.
The bcrypt utility itself does not appear to maintain a list of salts. Rather, salts are generated randomly and appended to the output of the function so that they are remembered later on (according to the Java implementation of bcrypt). Put another way, the "hash" generated by bcrypt is not just the hash. Rather, it is the hash and the salt concatenated.
This is a simple terms...
Bcrypt does not have a database it stores the salt...
The salt is added to the hash in base64 format....
The question is how does bcrypt verifies the password when it has no database...?
What bcrypt does is that it extract the salt from the password hash... Use the salt extracted to encrypt the plain password and compares the new hash with the old hash to see if they are the same...
To make things even more clearer,
Registeration/Login direction ->
The password + salt is encrypted with a key generated from the: cost, salt and the password. we call that encrypted value the cipher text. then we attach the salt to this value and encoding it using base64. attaching the cost to it and this is the produced string from bcrypt:
$2a$COST$BASE64
This value is stored eventually.
What the attacker would need to do in order to find the password ? (other direction <- )
In case the attacker got control over the DB, the attacker will decode easily the base64 value, and then he will be able to see the salt. the salt is not secret. though it is random.
Then he will need to decrypt the cipher text.
What is more important : There is no hashing in this process, rather CPU expensive encryption - decryption. thus rainbow tables are less relevant here.
Lets imagine a table that has 1 hashed password. If hacker gets access he would know the salt but he will have to calculate a big list for all the common passwords and compare after each calculation. This will take time and he would have only cracked 1 password.
Imagine a second hashed password in the same table. The salt is visible but the same above calculation needs to happen again to crack this one too because the salts are different.
If no random salts were used, it would have been much easier, why? If we use simple hashing we can just generate hashes for common passwords 1 single time (rainbow table) and just do a simple table search, or simple file search between the db table hashes and our pre-calculated hashes to find the plain passwords.
We would like to cryptographically (SHA-256) hash a secret value in our database. Since we want to use this as a way to lookup individual records in our database, we cannot use a different random salt for each encrypted value.
My question is: given unlimited access to our database, and given that the attacker knows at least one secret value and hashed value pair, is it possible for the attacker to reverse engineer the cryptographic key? IE, would the attacker then be able to reverse all hashes and determine all secret values?
It seems like this defeats the entire purpose of a cryptographic hash if it is the case, so perhaps I'm missing something.
There are no published "first pre-image" attacks against SHA-256. Without such an attack to open a shortcut, it is impossible for an attacker to the recover a secret value from its SHA-256 hash.
However, the mention of a "secret key" might indicate some confusion about hashes. Hash algorithms don't use a key. So, if an attacker were able to attack one "secret-value–hash-value" pair, he wouldn't learn a "key" that would enable him to easily invert the rest of the hash values.
When a hash is attacked successfully, it is usually because the original message was from a small space. For example, most passwords are chosen from a relatively short list of real words, perhaps with some simple permutations. So, rather than systematically testing every possible password, the attacker starts with an ordered list of the few billion most common passwords. To avoid this, it's important to choose the "secret value" randomly from a large space.
There are message authentication algorithms that hash a secret key together with some data. These algorithms are used to protect the integrity of the message against tampering. But they don't help thwart pre-image attacks.
In short, yes.
No, a SHA hash is not reversible (at least not easily). When you Hash something if you need to reverse it you need to reconstruct the hash. This is usually done with a private (salt) and public key.
For example, if I'm trying to prevent access based off my user id. I would hash my user id and the salt. Let say MD5 for example. My user id is "12345" and the salt is "abcde"
So I will hash the string "12345_abcde", which return a hash of "7b322f78afeeb81ad92873b776558368"
Now I will pass to the validating application the hash and the public key, "12345" which is the public key and the has.
The validating application, knows the salt, so it hashes the same values. "12345_abcde", which in turn would generate the exact same hash. I then compare the hash i validated with the one passed off and they match. If I had somehow modified the public key without modifying the hash, a different has would have been generated resulting in a mismatch.
Yes it's possible, but not in this lifetime.
Modern brute-force attacks using multiple GPUs could crack this in short order. I recommend you follow the guidelines for password storage for this application. Here are the current password storage guidelines from OWASP. Currently, they recommend a long salt value, and PBKDF2 with 64,000 iterations, which iteratively stretches the key and makes it computationally complex to brute force the input values. Note that this will also make it computationally complex for you to generate your key values, but the idea is that you will be generating keys far less frequently than an attacker would have to. That said, your design requires many more key derivations than a typical password storage/challenge application, so your design may be fatally flawed. Also keep in mind that the iteration count should doubled every 18 months to make the computational complexity follow Moore's Law. This means that your system would need some way of allowing you to rehash these values (possibly by combining hash techniques). Over time, you will find that old HMAC functions are broken by cryptanalysts, and you need to be ready to update your algorithms. For example, a single iteration of MD5 or SHA-1 used to be sufficient, but it is not anymore. There are other HMAC functions that could also suit your needs that wouldn't require PBKDF2 (such as bcrypt or scrypt), but PBKDF2 is currently the industry standard that has received the most scrutiny. One could argue that bcrypt or scrypt would also be suitable, but this is yet another reason why a pluggable scheme should be used to allow you to upgrade HMAC functions over time.
Someone told me that he has seen software systems that:
retrieve MD5 encrypted passwords from other systems;
decrypt the encrypted passwords and
store the passwords in the database of the system using the systems own algorithm.
Is that possible? I thought that it wasn't possible / feasible to decrypt MD5 hashes.
I know there are MD5 dictionaries, but is there an actual decryption algorithm?
No. MD5 is not encryption (though it may be used as part of some encryption algorithms), it is a one way hash function. Much of the original data is actually "lost" as part of the transformation.
Think about this: An MD5 is always 128 bits long. That means that there are 2128 possible MD5 hashes. That is a reasonably large number, and yet it is most definitely finite. And yet, there are an infinite number of possible inputs to a given hash function (and most of them contain more than 128 bits, or a measly 16 bytes). So there are actually an infinite number of possibilities for data that would hash to the same value. The thing that makes hashes interesting is that it is incredibly difficult to find two pieces of data that hash to the same value, and the chances of it happening by accident are almost 0.
A simple example for a (very insecure) hash function (and this illustrates the general idea of it being one-way) would be to take all of the bits of a piece of data, and treat it as a large number. Next, perform integer division using some large (probably prime) number n and take the remainder (see: Modulus). You will be left with some number between 0 and n. If you were to perform the same calculation again (any time, on any computer, anywhere), using the exact same string, it will come up with the same value. And yet, there is no way to find out what the original value was, since there are an infinite number of numbers that have that exact remainder, when divided by n.
That said, MD5 has been found to have some weaknesses, such that with some complex mathematics, it may be possible to find a collision without trying out 2128 possible input strings. And the fact that most passwords are short, and people often use common values (like "password" or "secret") means that in some cases, you can make a reasonably good guess at someone's password by Googling for the hash or using a Rainbow table. That is one reason why you should always "salt" hashed passwords, so that two identical values, when hashed, will not hash to the same value.
Once a piece of data has been run through a hash function, there is no going back.
You can't - in theory. The whole point of a hash is that it's one way only. This means that if someone manages to get the list of hashes, they still can't get your password. Additionally it means that even if someone uses the same password on multiple sites (yes, we all know we shouldn't, but...) anyone with access to the database of site A won't be able to use the user's password on site B.
The fact that MD5 is a hash also means it loses information. For any given MD5 hash, if you allow passwords of arbitrary length there could be multiple passwords which produce the same hash. For a good hash it would be computationally infeasible to find them beyond a pretty trivial maximum length, but it means there's no guarantee that if you find a password which has the target hash, it's definitely the original password. It's astronomically unlikely that you'd see two ASCII-only, reasonable-length passwords that have the same MD5 hash, but it's not impossible.
MD5 is a bad hash to use for passwords:
It's fast, which means if you have a "target" hash, it's cheap to try lots of passwords and see whether you can find one which hashes to that target. Salting doesn't help with that scenario, but it helps to make it more expensive to try to find a password matching any one of multiple hashes using different salts.
I believe it has known flaws which make it easier to find collisions, although finding collisions within printable text (rather than arbitrary binary data) would at least be harder.
I'm not a security expert, so won't make a concrete recommendation beyond "Don't roll your own authentication system." Find one from a reputable supplier, and use that. Both the design and implementation of security systems is a tricky business.
Technically, it's 'possible', but under very strict conditions (rainbow tables, brute forcing based on the very small possibility that a user's password is in that hash database).
But that doesn't mean it's
Viable
or
Secure
You don't want to 'reverse' an MD5 hash. Using the methods outlined below, you'll never need to. 'Reversing' MD5 is actually considered malicious - a few websites offer the ability to 'crack' and bruteforce MD5 hashes - but all they are are massive databases containing dictionary words, previously submitted passwords and other words. There is a very small chance that it will have the MD5 hash you need reversed. And if you've salted the MD5 hash - this won't work either! :)
The way logins with MD5 hashing should work is:
During Registration:
User creates password -> Password is hashed using MD5 -> Hash stored in database
During Login:
User enters username and password -> (Username checked) Password is hashed using MD5 -> Hash is compared with stored hash in database
When 'Lost Password' is needed:
2 options:
User sent a random password to log in, then is bugged to change it on first login.
or
User is sent a link to change their password (with extra checking if you have a security question/etc) and then the new password is hashed and replaced with old password in database
Not directly. Because of the pigeonhole principle, there is (likely) more than one value that hashes to any given MD5 output. As such, you can't reverse it with certainty. Moreover, MD5 is made to make it difficult to find any such reversed hash (however there have been attacks that produce collisions - that is, produce two values that hash to the same result, but you can't control what the resulting MD5 value will be).
However, if you restrict the search space to, for example, common passwords with length under N, you might no longer have the irreversibility property (because the number of MD5 outputs is much greater than the number of strings in the domain of interest). Then you can use a rainbow table or similar to reverse hashes.
Not possible, at least not in a reasonable amount of time.
The way this is often handled is a password "reset". That is, you give them a new (random) password and send them that in an email.
You can't revert a md5 password.(in any language)
But you can:
give to the user a new one.
check in some rainbow table to maybe retrieve the old one.
No, he must have been confused about the MD5 dictionaries.
Cryptographic hashes (MD5, etc...) are one way and you can't get back to the original message with only the digest unless you have some other information about the original message, etc. that you shouldn't.
Decryption (directly getting the the plain text from the hashed value, in an algorithmic way), no.
There are, however, methods that use what is known as a rainbow table. It is pretty feasible if your passwords are hashed without a salt.
MD5 is a hashing algorithm, you can not revert the hash value.
You should add "change password feature", where the user gives another password, calculates the hash and store it as a new password.
There's no easy way to do it. This is kind of the point of hashing the password in the first place. :)
One thing you should be able to do is set a temporary password for them manually and send them that.
I hesitate to mention this because it's a bad idea (and it's not guaranteed to work anyway), but you could try looking up the hash in a rainbow table like milw0rm to see if you can recover the old password that way.
See all other answers here about how and why it's not reversible and why you wouldn't want to anyway.
For completeness though, there are rainbow tables which you can look up possible matches on. There is no guarantee that the answer in the rainbow table will be the original password chosen by your user so that would confuse them greatly.
Also, this will not work for salted hashes. Salting is recommended by many security experts.
No, it is not possible to reverse a hash function such as MD5: given the output hash value it is impossible to find the input message unless enough information about the input message is known.
Decryption is not a function that is defined for a hash function; encryption and decryption are functions of a cipher such as AES in CBC mode; hash functions do not encrypt nor decrypt. Hash functions are used to digest an input message. As the name implies there is no reverse algorithm possible by design.
MD5 has been designed as a cryptographically secure, one-way hash function. It is now easy to generate collisions for MD5 - even if a large part of the input message is pre-determined. So MD5 is officially broken and MD5 should not be considered a cryptographically secure hash anymore. It is however still impossible to find an input message that leads to a hash value: find X when only H(X) is known (and X doesn't have a pre-computed structure with at least one 128 byte block of precomputed data). There are no known pre-image attacks against MD5.
It is generally also possible to guess passwords using brute force or (augmented) dictionary attacks, to compare databases or to try and find password hashes in so called rainbow tables. If a match is found then it is computationally certain that the input has been found. Hash functions are also secure against collision attacks: finding X' so that H(X') = H(X) given H(X). So if an X is found it is computationally certain that it was indeed the input message. Otherwise you would have performed a collision attack after all. Rainbow tables can be used to speed up the attacks and there are specialized internet resources out there that will help you find a password given a specific hash.
It is of course possible to re-use the hash value H(X) to verify passwords that were generated on other systems. The only thing that the receiving system has to do is to store the result of a deterministic function F that takes H(X) as input. When X is given to the system then H(X) and therefore F can be recalculated and the results can be compared. In other words, it is not required to decrypt the hash value to just verify that a password is correct, and you can still store the hash as a different value.
Instead of MD5 it is important to use a password hash or PBKDF (password based key derivation function) instead. Such a function specifies how to use a salt together with a hash. That way identical hashes won't be generated for identical passwords (from other users or within other databases). Password hashes for that reason also do not allow rainbow tables to be used as long as the salt is large enough and properly randomized.
Password hashes also contain a work factor (sometimes configured using an iteration count) that can significantly slow down attacks that try to find the password given the salt and hash value. This is important as the database with salts and hash values could be stolen. Finally, the password hash may also be memory-hard so that a significant amount of memory is required to calculate the hash. This makes it impossible to use special hardware (GPU's, ASIC's, FPGA's etc.) to allow an attacker to speed up the search. Other inputs or configuration options such as a pepper or the amount of parallelization may also be available to a password hash.
It will however still allow anybody to verify a password given H(X) even if H(X) is a password hash. Password hashes are still deterministic, so if anybody has knows all the input and the hash algorithm itself then X can be used to calculate H(X) and - again - the results can be compared.
Commonly used password hashes are bcrypt, scrypt and PBKDF2. There is also Argon2 in various forms which is the winner of the reasonably recent password hashing competition. Here on CrackStation is a good blog post on doing password security right.
It is possible to make it impossible for adversaries to perform the hash calculation verify that a password is correct. For this a pepper can be used as input to the password hash. Alternatively, the hash value can of course be encrypted using a cipher such as AES and a mode of operation such as CBC or GCM. This however requires the storage of a secret / key independently and with higher access requirements than the password hash.
MD5 is considered broken, not because you can get back the original content from the hash, but because with work, you can craft two messages that hash to the same hash.
You cannot un-hash an MD5 hash.
There is no way of "reverting" a hash function in terms of finding the inverse function for it. As mentioned before, this is the whole point of having a hash function. It should not be reversible and it should allow for fast hash value calculation. So the only way to find an input string which yields a given hash value is to try out all possible combinations. This is called brute force attack for that reason.
Trying all possible combinations takes a lot of time and this is also the reason why hash values are used to store passwords in a relatively safe way. If an attacker is able to access your database with all the user passwords inside, you loose in any case. If you have hash values and (idealistically speaking) strong passwords, it will be a lot harder to get the passwords out of the hash values for the attacker.
Storing the hash values is also no performance problem because computing the hash value is relatively fast. So what most systems do is computing the hash value of the password the user keyed in (which is fast) and then compare it to the stored hash value in their user database.
You can find online tools that use a dictionary to retrieve the original message.
In some cases, the dictionary method might just be useless:
if the message is hashed using a SALT message
if the message is hash more than once
For example, here is one MD5 decrypter online tool.
The only thing that can be work is (if we mention that the passwords are just hashed, without adding any kind of salt to prevent the replay attacks, if it is so you must know the salt)by the way, get an dictionary attack tool, the files of many words, numbers etc. then create two rows, one row is word,number (in dictionary) the other one is hash of the word, and compare the hashes if matches you get it...
that's the only way, without going into cryptanalysis.
The MD5 Hash algorithm is not reversible, so MD5 decode in not possible, but some website have bulk set of password match, so you can try online for decode MD5 hash.
Try online :
MD5 Decrypt
md5online
md5decrypter
Yes, exactly what you're asking for is possible.
It is not possible to 'decrypt' an MD5 password without help, but it is possible to re-encrypt an MD5 password into another algorithm, just not all in one go.
What you do is arrange for your users to be able to logon to your new system using the old MD5 password. At the point that they login they have given your login program an unhashed version of the password that you prove matches the MD5 hash that you have. You can then convert this unhashed password to your new hashing algorithm.
Obviously, this is an extended process because you have to wait for your users to tell you what the passwords are, but it does work.
(NB: seven years later, oh well hopefully someone will find it useful)
No, it cannot be done. Either you can use a dictionary, or you can try hashing different values until you get the hash that you are seeking. But it cannot be "decrypted".
MD5 has its weaknesses (see Wikipedia), so there are some projects, which try to precompute Hashes. Wikipedia does also hint at some of these projects. One I know of (and respect) is ophrack. You can not tell the user their own password, but you might be able to tell them a password that works. But i think: Just mail thrm a new password in case they forgot.
In theory it is not possible to decrypt a hash value but you have some dirty techniques for getting the original plain text back.
Bruteforcing: All computer security algorithm suffer bruteforcing. Based on this idea today's GPU employ the idea of parallel programming using which it can get back the plain text by massively bruteforcing it using any graphics processor. This tool hashcat does this job. Last time I checked the cuda version of it, I was able to bruteforce a 7 letter long character within six minutes.
Internet search: Just copy and paste the hash on Google and see If you can find the corresponding plaintext there. This is not a solution when you are pentesting something but it is definitely worth a try. Some websites maintain the hash for almost all the words in the dictionary.
MD5 is a cryptographic (one-way) hash function, so there is no direct way to decode it. The entire purpose of a cryptographic hash function is that you can't undo it.
One thing you can do is a brute-force strategy, where you guess what was hashed, then hash it with the same function and see if it matches. Unless the hashed data is very easy to guess, it could take a long time though.
It is not yet possible to put in a hash of a password into an algorithm and get the password back in plain text because hashing is a one way thing. But what people have done is to generate hashes and store it in a big table so that when you enter a particular hash, it checks the table for the password that matches the hash and returns that password to you. An example of a site that does that is http://www.md5online.org/ . Modern password storage system counters this by using a salting algorithm such that when you enter the same password into a password box during registration different hashes are generated.
No, you can not decrypt/reverse the md5 as it is a one-way hash function till you can not found a extensive vulnerabilities in the MD5.
Another way is there are some website has a large amount of set of password database, so you can try online to decode your MD5 or SHA1 hash string.
I tried a website like http://www.mycodemyway.com/encrypt-and-decrypt/md5 and its working fine for me but this totally depends on your hash if that hash is stored in that database then you can get the actual string.
The current top-voted to this question states:
Another one that's not so much a security issue, although it is security-related, is complete and abject failure to grok the difference between hashing a password and encrypting it. Most commonly found in code where the programmer is trying to provide unsafe "Remind me of my password" functionality.
What exactly is this difference? I was always under the impression that hashing was a form of encryption. What is the unsafe functionality the poster is referring to?
Hashing is a one way function (well, a mapping). It's irreversible, you apply the secure hash algorithm and you cannot get the original string back. The most you can do is to generate what's called "a collision", that is, finding a different string that provides the same hash. Cryptographically secure hash algorithms are designed to prevent the occurrence of collisions. You can attack a secure hash by the use of a rainbow table, which you can counteract by applying a salt to the hash before storing it.
Encrypting is a proper (two way) function. It's reversible, you can decrypt the mangled string to get original string if you have the key.
The unsafe functionality it's referring to is that if you encrypt the passwords, your application has the key stored somewhere and an attacker who gets access to your database (and/or code) can get the original passwords by getting both the key and the encrypted text, whereas with a hash it's impossible.
People usually say that if a cracker owns your database or your code he doesn't need a password, thus the difference is moot. This is naïve, because you still have the duty to protect your users' passwords, mainly because most of them do use the same password over and over again, exposing them to a greater risk by leaking their passwords.
Hashing is a one-way function, meaning that once you hash a password it is very difficult to get the original password back from the hash. Encryption is a two-way function, where it's much easier to get the original text back from the encrypted text.
Plain hashing is easily defeated using a dictionary attack, where an attacker just pre-hashes every word in a dictionary (or every combination of characters up to a certain length), then uses this new dictionary to look up hashed passwords. Using a unique random salt for each hashed password stored makes it much more difficult for an attacker to use this method. They would basically need to create a new unique dictionary for every salt value that you use, slowing down their attack terribly.
It's unsafe to store passwords using an encryption algorithm because if it's easier for the user or the administrator to get the original password back from the encrypted text, it's also easier for an attacker to do the same.
As shown in the above image, if the password is encrypted it is always a hidden secret where someone can extract the plain text password. However when password is hashed, you are relaxed as there is hardly any method of recovering the password from the hash value.
Extracted from Encrypted vs Hashed Passwords - Which is better?
Is encryption good?
Plain text passwords can be encrypted using symmetric encryption algorithms like DES, AES or with any other algorithms and be stored inside the database. At the authentication (confirming the identity with user name and password), application will decrypt the encrypted password stored in database and compare with user provided password for equality. In this type of an password handling approach, even if someone get access to database tables the passwords will not be simply reusable. However there is a bad news in this approach as well. If somehow someone obtain the cryptographic algorithm along with the key used by your application, he/she will be able to view all the user passwords stored in your database by decryption. "This is the best option I got", a software developer may scream, but is there a better way?
Cryptographic hash function (one-way-only)
Yes there is, may be you have missed the point here. Did you notice that there is no requirement to decrypt and compare? If there is one-way-only conversion approach where the password can be converted into some converted-word, but the reverse operation (generation of password from converted-word) is impossible. Now even if someone gets access to the database, there is no way that the passwords be reproduced or extracted using the converted-words. In this approach, there will be hardly anyway that some could know your users' top secret passwords; and this will protect the users using the same password across multiple applications. What algorithms can be used for this approach?
I've always thought that Encryption can be converted both ways, in a way that the end value can bring you to original value and with Hashing you'll not be able to revert from the end result to the original value.
Hashing algorithms are usually cryptographic in nature, but the principal difference is that encryption is reversible through decryption, and hashing is not.
An encryption function typically takes input and produces encrypted output that is the same, or slightly larger size.
A hashing function takes input and produces a typically smaller output, typically of a fixed size as well.
While it isn't possible to take a hashed result and "dehash" it to get back the original input, you can typically brute-force your way to something that produces the same hash.
In other words, if a authentication scheme takes a password, hashes it, and compares it to a hashed version of the requires password, it might not be required that you actually know the original password, only its hash, and you can brute-force your way to something that will match, even if it's a different password.
Hashing functions are typically created to minimize the chance of collisions and make it hard to just calculate something that will produce the same hash as something else.
Hashing:
It is a one-way algorithm and once hashed can not rollback and this is its sweet point against encryption.
Encryption
If we perform encryption, there will a key to do this. If this key will be leaked all of your passwords could be decrypted easily.
On the other hand, even if your database will be hacked or your server admin took data from DB and you used hashed passwords, the hacker will not able to break these hashed passwords. This would actually practically impossible if we use hashing with proper salt and additional security with PBKDF2.
If you want to take a look at how should you write your hash functions, you can visit here.
There are many algorithms to perform hashing.
MD5 - Uses the Message Digest Algorithm 5 (MD5) hash function. The output hash is 128 bits in length. The MD5 algorithm was designed by Ron Rivest in the early 1990s and is not a preferred option today.
SHA1 - Uses Security Hash Algorithm (SHA1) hash published in 1995. The output hash is 160 bits in length. Although most widely used, this is not a preferred option today.
HMACSHA256, HMACSHA384, HMACSHA512 - Use the functions SHA-256, SHA-384, and SHA-512 of the SHA-2 family. SHA-2 was published in 2001. The output hash lengths are 256, 384, and 512 bits, respectively,as the hash functions’ names indicate.
Ideally you should do both.
First Hash the pass password for the one way security. Use a salt for extra security.
Then encrypt the hash to defend against dictionary attacks if your database of password hashes is compromised.
As correct as the other answers may be, in the context that the quote was in, hashing is a tool that may be used in securing information, encryption is a process that takes information and makes it very difficult for unauthorized people to read/use.
Here's one reason you may want to use one over the other - password retrieval.
If you only store a hash of a user's password, you can't offer a 'forgotten password' feature.