I read about Recommended # of iterations when using PBKDF2-SHA256?

I have also read in Why not just use a small but unusual number of hashing rounds? that when there are multiple password to protect, the moment one is cracked the hacker will know for all passwords which is the number of iterations required. But if I have to protect just one file with one password (or a very limited number of files with the same password), does it make sense if instead of selecting 100000 iterations to protect the password I use a "random" number like 97334? Or is there an easy way for the attacker to know how many iterations they need to run?

The tool used in OpenSSL, and the attacker will have the encrypted file(s). The number of iterations to encrypt the key is not visible to the attacker.

  • 2
    Why would you assume an attacker knows the algorithm but not the number of iterations?
    – Gamer2015
    Aug 2, 2021 at 18:11
  • @dandavis usually the output is just the password based key of the specified length. Parameters like salt and iterations have to be saved independently (assuming the iterations count is not fixed)
    – Robert
    Aug 2, 2021 at 20:59
  • @dandavis I think you mix up the scrypt key derivation algorithm with the *nix scrypt command. The first only outputs the generated key see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrypt
    – Robert
    Aug 2, 2021 at 21:07
  • @ThoriumBR Thank you for pointing out to that question, it does answer the question. I have edited to specify one detail which is different in my use case: I have to protect just one password (or a limited number of strong passwords). Looking at the answers there, it still looks that "randomizing" my number of iterations still makes sense.
    – Antonio
    Aug 3, 2021 at 8:50
  • 1
    If you still don't agree with me it seems like you want to use the number of iterations as a key. A key should have enough entropy, a number less than 2^64 won't be of any value here. As Anders pointed out in his answer it would be better to have a seperate secret you can use as pepper. One attack vector I could think of when considering the number of iterations as a key would be timing attacks.
    – Gamer2015
    Aug 3, 2021 at 12:47

1 Answer 1


You are essentially trying to use the number of rounds as a pepper. Only problem is that the number of rounds is included in the full output of PBKDF2, and therefore known to the attacker.

               ^^^^ There it is!

You could use a different number of rounds than printed to confuse the attacker, but then you would be fiddling with the algorithm and risk making a fatal mistake.

An actual pepper, encrypting the hash or just increasing the entropy of the password would be better ways to increase your security.

  • In the specific library I am using to encrypt, the number of iterations doesn't seem to be visible in the encrypted file. Maybe I didn't understand correctly what you mean: are you saying that there is a program that can see from an encrypted file how many iterations where performed to protect the key? I do understand and agree that having a longer/stronger/higher entropy password is a certain way to improve security, I wonder if an obfuscated the number of iterations can make the work of the attacker even more difficult.
    – Antonio
    Aug 3, 2021 at 12:16
  • 1
    I didn't check, but I don't think outputting the number of rounds is part of the standard. I don't see any reason why you couldn't just strip out that part and just store the hash, assuming that you store the number of rounds somewhere else (like hardcode it).
    – nobody
    Aug 3, 2021 at 12:20
  • @Antonio Are you using PBKDF for hashing passwords for user authentication, or for stretching encryption keys? I assumed the former, perhaps incorrectly. Sorry if my tag edits made your question make less sense.
    – Anders
    Aug 3, 2021 at 13:59
  • @nobody If the use case is password hashing for user authentication, it is good practice to treat the full string as a single unit, and let a well tested hash library take care of the details. But maybe that is not the use case here.
    – Anders
    Aug 3, 2021 at 14:01
  • @Anders I am protecting a file with a password, so I think the answer to your question is "stretching encryption keys". Should my question be rephrased?
    – Antonio
    Aug 3, 2021 at 16:52

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .