phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Question about saturating the memory bandwidth

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: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 13:32:17 +0000
From: Peter Maxwell <peter@...icient.co.uk>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Question about saturating the memory bandwidth

On 18 January 2014 09:47, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jan 18, 2014 at 08:40:08AM +0000, Peter Maxwell wrote:
> > And therein lies the rub.  Saturating the memory bandwidth will not be
> > practical - or even nearly so - for the majority of use-cases.
>  Similarly,
> > the idea of the defender using GPUs will not be reasonable in most
> > instances either.  Yes, there are specific cases where it might be useful
> > but one needs to address far more mundane scenarios like busy web-servers
> > on current hardware.
>
> There's no problem with saturating the memory bandwidth for password
> hashing on busy web servers.
>
> 
Ok, what would you consider reasonable "general use" parameters for a busy
web-service hosted on reasonable hardware that meets your idea of a minimum
security threshold: how much memory do you intend to use, how much
computation time/cycles do you suggest?

(yes, I'm being cheeky, there is going to be a follow up)

Content of type "text/html" skipped