phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Scripting memory (not so) high vs Catena in PHP (with optimizations)

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 14:55:01 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Scripting memory (not so) high vs Catena in PHP (with optimizations)

On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 04:05:14AM -0600, Steve Thomas wrote:
> On January 13, 2014 at 3:31 AM Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 02:50:22AM -0600, Steve Thomas wrote:
> > > I averaged 7 calls and took the average of 3 runs. So your i7-4770K is
> > > 4.45x faster.
> >
> > Ouch. I guess you're using a 32-bit build of PHP. Right?
> 
> Nope, it's 64 bit. I think it might be slow because I'm using WAMP and It's
> PHP 5.3.4.

Here's what we have on the i7-4770K:

$ php5 -v
PHP 5.3.10-1ubuntu3.8 with Suhosin-Patch (cli) (built: Sep  4 2013 20:00:51)
Copyright (c) 1997-2012 The PHP Group
Zend Engine v2.3.0, Copyright (c) 1998-2012 Zend Technologies

I doubt it's the PHP version difference.  More likely it's something
with your build of PHP.

> > I think the side-channels issue may be mitigated by combining both
> > approaches: switching to the risky secret-dependent indexing at some
> > point during hash computation, so that the impact of a potential
> > early-reject (possible after side-channel monitoring) is fairly low.
> 
> This is OK until you upgrade your hashes then it will do the secret-dependent
> indexing throwout.

Then it will start the secret-dependent indexing _relatively_ earlier,
but that's at the same time as pre-upgrade in absolute terms.

I think this is just one of many issues/drawbacks with supporting and
using hash upgrades.  Another/worse drawback is that area-time cost for
upgraded hashes is lower than it can be for same-duration new hashes.

The hash upgrading idea would have been great in 1990s, when we were not
trying to use much memory.  These days, it is not as great.  (Yet I had
it on my slides from PHDays 2012 and later.)

Alexander