| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2013 16:54:22 +0000 From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com> To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net> Subject: RE: [PHC] Testing Password Hashing functions > -----Original Message----- > From: Yann Droneaud [mailto:ydroneaud@...eya.com] > Sent: Friday, April 5, 2013 8:53 AM > To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net > Subject: Re: [PHC] Testing Password Hashing functions > > So using the PRNG test is probably a first evaluation step, but doesn't seems > to be enough. Agree. They're a useful sanity check. RC4 is an example of a PRNG that wouldn't pass basic statistical tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_cipher_modes_of_operation#Counter_.28CTR.29 AES-128 in CTR mode with the key and plaintext inputs switched is a simple example of a PRNG which would pass all statistical tests and yet be completely broken. An additional requirement of a password hashing function over a PRNG is that it require a significant amount of work to compute which no one can optimize away. I'm not sure statistical tests can help much here. > So what others tools, methods are going to be used to evaluate password > hash functions ? My impression is that the construction of any potentially-reusable parts of the tools is so much easier than the analysis itself that it's almost a rite of passage for researchers to write their own. Unfortunately, only a few end up as open source. There's a few at http://www.ecrypt.eu.org/tools/ Marc Stevens makes his MD5 and SHA-1 tools open source https://code.google.com/p/hashclash/ - Marsh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists