phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

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, 5 Apr 2014 13:38:26 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com> wrote:
> POMELO's submission document doesn't use the words "key derivation
> function", but it does claim collision resistance. But if you can find a
> sequence of inputs which causes the outputs to fails the
> diehard_birthdays test, then obviously you've reduced its collision
> resistance to at least something less than 2**(outlen/2) (for outlen
> expressed in bits). In this case, inputs of 0, 1, 2, 3... did the job.

In the case of POMELO, the output does not change base on the password
(due to a 2-line bug).  So, since people keep asking for demonstrated
input:

candidates> ./phs-pomelo -p one 1 1

1c a4 39 75 93 02 41 dc
15 f4 69 c1 55 1c b8 c0
a1 4a fd c2 e7 a3 e1 a8
e3 95 db 82 0c 97 26 d9      32 (octets)

candidates> ./phs-pomelo -p two 1 1

1c a4 39 75 93 02 41 dc
15 f4 69 c1 55 1c b8 c0
a1 4a fd c2 e7 a3 e1 a8
e3 95 db 82 0c 97 26 d9      32 (octets)

The two line fix to lines 47 and 48, so that the salt does not
overwrite the password, makes dieharder happy with POMELO output.

Bill