musl’s crypt() returns the string * as an error indicator when the key is over 256 bytes long. * is also exactly what the stored field contains for every account with no password, so the “hash” matches and the login succeeds.
Does anyone know why musl does this? Are they the only C library that behaves this way?
For a C library that famously tries to adhere to POSIX as much as possible, this seems like a crazy choice. From POSIX standard:
Upon successful completion, crypt() shall return a pointer to the encoded string. The first two bytes of the returned value shall be those of the salt argument. Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the error.
Thanks yeah just woke up, finished making my way through the single-article website and still unclear if other libcs do the same thing (the article says libxcrypt picked it up, but only after musl did it).
Apparently because some devs didn't check for NULL which resulted in crashes. Weird choice to fix other peoples' bad programming by deviating from the spec.
To be fair (as the sshole site mentions) it is also necessary to fake a password hash check to avoid timing side channels revealing to remote clients whether users exist, so returning a sentinel value is not a horrifically unreasonable solution to make sure even naive code does approximately the right thing.
Though I am surprised that all of the code examples do not use constant-time strcmp(). Actually, I wonder if even constant-time strncmp() would still leak information about whether the account is disabled because in that case both arguments are much shorter? Food for thought.
But yeah, the crypt(3) API is very 80s C, the man page even features a lengthy description of a long-deprecated and utterly broken hashing algorithm using DES that is even implied to be broken in the text itself (and the warning message is so old it refers to "parallel computers" as though they were a new concept). Given that the default mode is to use a broken hashing algorithm, I'm shocked anyone actually uses the libc crypt(3) -- surely it's trivial to just write your own that isn't awful...?
Constant time strcmp doesn't fix it. The problem is that the user doesn't have a password at all (the hash is *). But which hashing algorithm is used is encoded in the password. So they pick a different user's hash to not leak the information that there is no password.
Alternate solution would be to hardcode a specific algorithm, but that could also leak info in many cases, I guess.
i think it's just unbelievable there isn't a bigger push to move away from c to languages that can prevent stuff like this from happening. this and just the pure unsafety. it's 2026. it's like pure negligence at this point, the equivalent of building a bridge with matchsticks because you like using it more.
How would using a language different than C help here? At it's core this bug is a logic bug, where "*" == crypt(x), because crypt in musl started returning "*" in some cases some years ago. This could be Rust. This could be Go.
>because crypt in musl started returning "*" in some cases some years ago
In Rust, the type of the return value would be a `Result<T, E>`, which means the chain of events that led to this would never have started in the first place.
In C the return value would be NULL, except it was changed by musl at some point.
Edit: at the beginning, crypt always returned a value. So hypothetical Rust return type would be a String, and then it would be retained for backward compatibility. Or something else would happen, this is a complex logic bug triggered by a 25 year old chain of events.
That's what led some people to write code where it crashes without checks. Which is still their mistake. But if the type was something that can't be implicitly used like an always-present value, that would have prevented the situation, even with those same people.
Another comment said that returning a * was to avoid returning null which would crash users of the library who didn't check for null. That seems like a C smell to me
it's unbelievable to me that there isn't a larger movement of developers to move away from c towards better & safer languages. look at how much pushback the rust4linux folks get, primarily from c developers who are simply afraid of change. imagine engineers not adopting safer building practices because "they prefer the old way"....it's disgusting honestly.
what will it take to move away from c? older devs retiring. Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time" and i fear it will be the same for software.
Cars without seatbelts and airbags chopping off driver's heads in relatively slow collisions? Well guess what, that could happen in a modern car as well if the driver sticks their head out the window while going through a very tight tunnel!
musl’s crypt() returns the string * as an error indicator when the key is over 256 bytes long. * is also exactly what the stored field contains for every account with no password, so the “hash” matches and the login succeeds.
Does anyone know why musl does this? Are they the only C library that behaves this way?
For a C library that famously tries to adhere to POSIX as much as possible, this seems like a crazy choice. From POSIX standard:
Upon successful completion, crypt() shall return a pointer to the encoded string. The first two bytes of the returned value shall be those of the salt argument. Otherwise, it shall return a null pointer and set errno to indicate the error.
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/c...
There's a very detailed trace of how the bug was developed over decades at sshhole.com and the relevant discussion in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50378228
Thanks yeah just woke up, finished making my way through the single-article website and still unclear if other libcs do the same thing (the article says libxcrypt picked it up, but only after musl did it).
Apparently because some devs didn't check for NULL which resulted in crashes. Weird choice to fix other peoples' bad programming by deviating from the spec.
To be fair (as the sshole site mentions) it is also necessary to fake a password hash check to avoid timing side channels revealing to remote clients whether users exist, so returning a sentinel value is not a horrifically unreasonable solution to make sure even naive code does approximately the right thing.
Though I am surprised that all of the code examples do not use constant-time strcmp(). Actually, I wonder if even constant-time strncmp() would still leak information about whether the account is disabled because in that case both arguments are much shorter? Food for thought.
But yeah, the crypt(3) API is very 80s C, the man page even features a lengthy description of a long-deprecated and utterly broken hashing algorithm using DES that is even implied to be broken in the text itself (and the warning message is so old it refers to "parallel computers" as though they were a new concept). Given that the default mode is to use a broken hashing algorithm, I'm shocked anyone actually uses the libc crypt(3) -- surely it's trivial to just write your own that isn't awful...?
Constant time strcmp doesn't fix it. The problem is that the user doesn't have a password at all (the hash is *). But which hashing algorithm is used is encoded in the password. So they pick a different user's hash to not leak the information that there is no password. Alternate solution would be to hardcode a specific algorithm, but that could also leak info in many cases, I guess.
TBH that sounds like a straight up bug in that it deviates dangerously from the spec.
Which is notable because musl is more known for adhering to the spec to the point where they break programs that assume nonstandard behavior.
I keep saying that no one should be using alpine or musl, but people keep replying that static linking is totally worth it.
Discussion from a few hours ago:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50377221
i think it's just unbelievable there isn't a bigger push to move away from c to languages that can prevent stuff like this from happening. this and just the pure unsafety. it's 2026. it's like pure negligence at this point, the equivalent of building a bridge with matchsticks because you like using it more.
How would using a language different than C help here? At it's core this bug is a logic bug, where "*" == crypt(x), because crypt in musl started returning "*" in some cases some years ago. This could be Rust. This could be Go.
Not every C vuln is a memory safety problem.
>because crypt in musl started returning "*" in some cases some years ago
In Rust, the type of the return value would be a `Result<T, E>`, which means the chain of events that led to this would never have started in the first place.
In C the return value would be NULL, except it was changed by musl at some point.
Edit: at the beginning, crypt always returned a value. So hypothetical Rust return type would be a String, and then it would be retained for backward compatibility. Or something else would happen, this is a complex logic bug triggered by a 25 year old chain of events.
The type of the value in C is `char*`.
That's what led some people to write code where it crashes without checks. Which is still their mistake. But if the type was something that can't be implicitly used like an always-present value, that would have prevented the situation, even with those same people.
Another comment said that returning a * was to avoid returning null which would crash users of the library who didn't check for null. That seems like a C smell to me
why does this logic bug exist? why are they returning a string, why not a result type, (nil, err), or something else?
oh right, because c is a crusty old language with barely any features.
What exactly do you mean "push"? What do you think is going to make musl developers switch languages?
it's unbelievable to me that there isn't a larger movement of developers to move away from c towards better & safer languages. look at how much pushback the rust4linux folks get, primarily from c developers who are simply afraid of change. imagine engineers not adopting safer building practices because "they prefer the old way"....it's disgusting honestly.
what will it take to move away from c? older devs retiring. Planck said that "science advances one funeral at a time" and i fear it will be the same for software.
guess what, this kind of sentinel value mistake could even be made in rust
Cars without seatbelts and airbags chopping off driver's heads in relatively slow collisions? Well guess what, that could happen in a modern car as well if the driver sticks their head out the window while going through a very tight tunnel!
no rust programmer would ever return a sentinel string like this.
musl's crypt function could be written in Rust, Python, or JavaScript, and still return * when the key is too long.