Imagine you have a web site that people can access via a password. No user name, just a password. There are a number of valid passwords for your service. Determining whether a password is in that set is security-sensitive: if a user has a valid password then they get access to some secret information; otherwise the site emits a 404. How do you determine whether a password is valid?

The go-to solution for this kind of problem for most programmers is a hash table. A hash table is a set of key-value associations, and its nice property is that looking up a value for a key is quick, because it doesn't have to check against each mapping in the set.

Hash tables are commonly implemented as an array of buckets, where each bucket holds a chain. If the bucket array is 32 elements long, for example, then keys whose hash is `H` are looked for in bucket `H mod 32`. The chain contains the key-value pairs in a linked list. Looking up a key traverses the list to find the first pair whose key equals the given key; if no pair matches, then the lookup fails.

Unfortunately, storing passwords in a normal hash table is not a great idea. The problem isn't so much in the hash function (the ` hash` in

*Edit: Some people are getting confused by my use of the term "password". Really I meant something more like "secret token", for example a session identifier in a cookie. I thought using the word "password" would be a useful simplification but it also adds historical baggage of password quality, key derivation functions, value of passwords as an attack target for reuse on other sites, etc. Mea culpa.*

So let's say you ensure that your hash table uses a constant-time string comparator, to protect against the hackers. You're safe! Or not! Because not all chains have the same length, "interested parties" can use lookup timings to distinguish chain lookups that take 2 comparisons compared to 1, for example. In general they will be able to determine the percentage of buckets for each chain length, and given the granularity will probably be able to determine the number of buckets as well (if that's not a secret).

Well, as we all know, small timing differences still leak sensitive information and can lead to complete compromise. So we look for a data structure that takes the same number of algorithmic steps to look up a value. For example, bisection over a sorted array of size `SIZE` will take `ceil(log _{2}(SIZE))` steps to get find the value, independent of what the key is and also independent of what is in the set. At each step, we compare the key and a "mid-point" value to see which is bigger, and recurse on one of the halves.

One problem is, I don't know of a nice constant-time comparison algorithm for (say) 160-bit values. (The "passwords" I am thinking of are randomly generated by the server, and can be as long as I want them to be.) I would appreciate any pointers to such a constant-time less-than algorithm. However a bigger problem is that the time it takes to access memory is not constant; accessing element 0 of the sorted array might take more or less time than accessing element 10. In algorithms we typically model access on a more abstract level, but in hardware there's a complicated parallel and concurrent protocol of low-level memory that takes a non-deterministic time for any given access. "Hot" (more recently accessed) memory is faster to read than "cold" memory.

Non-deterministic memory access leaks timing information, and in the case of binary search the result is disaster: the attacker can literally bisect the actual values of all of the passwords in your set, by observing timing differences. The worst!

You could get around this by ordering "passwords" not by their actual values but by their cryptographic hashes (e.g. by their SHA256 values). This would force the attacker to bisect not over the space of password values but of the space of hash values, which would protect actual password values from the attacker. You still leak some timing information about which paths are "hot" and which are "cold", but you don't expose actual passwords.

It turns out that, as far as I am aware, *it is impossible to design a key-value map on common hardware that runs in constant time and is sublinear in the number of entries in the map*. As Zooko put it, running in constant time means that the best case and the worst case run in the same amount of time. Of course this is false for bucket-and-chain hash tables, but it's false for binary search as well, as "hot" memory access is faster than "cold" access. The only plausible constant-time operation on a data structure would visit each element of the set in the same order each time. *All constant-time operations on data structures are linear in the size of the data structure.* Thems the breaks! All you can do is account for the leak in your models, as we did above when ordering values by their hash and not their normal sort order.

Once you have resigned yourself to leaking some bits of the password via timing, you would be fine using normal hash tables as well -- just use a cryptographic hashing function and a constant-time equality function and you're good. No constant-time less-than operator need be invented. You leak something on the order of `log _{2}(COUNT)` bits via timing, where

*Edit: People keep mentioning Cuckoo hashing for some reason, despite the fact that it's not a good open-hashing technique in general (Robin Hood hashes with linear probing are better). Thing is, any operation on a data structure that does not touch all of the memory in the data structure in exactly the same order regardless of input leaks cache timing information. That's the whole point of this article!*

An alternative is to encode your data structure differently, for example for the "key" to itself contain the value, signed by some private key only known to the server. But this approach is limited by network capacity and the appropriateness of copying for the data in question. It's not appropriate for photos, for example, as they are just too big.

*Edit: Forcing constant-time on the data structure via sleep() or similar calls is not a good mitigation. This either massively slows down your throughput, or leaks information via side channels. Remote attackers can measure throughput instead of latency to determine how long an operation takes.*

Corrections appreciated from my knowledgeable readers :) I was quite disappointed when I realized that there were no good constant-time data structures and would be happy to be proven wrong. Thanks to Darius Bacon, Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn, Jan Lehnardt, and Paul Khuong on Twitter for their insights; all mistakes are mine.