phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder 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 16:37:53 +0200
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder tests

I've received an update of the POMELO code, will be up soon.

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Peter Maxwell <peter@...icient.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 5 April 2014 07:15, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> POMELO is one of a handful of PHC candidates which are not constructed
>> around any established cryptographic hash function or cipher. POMELO's
>> security claims include collision-resistance. Unfortunately, its output
>> fails the dieharder tests.
>>
>
> While I don't have the time myself to do it this weekend, it might be better
> actually looking at the PHS output and what's going on in the reference
> implementation because you'd expect at least a wee bit of non-zero results.
> What you've got looks like a bug somewhere.
>
> Also, although it's probably not what's causing your results here, I'm
> fairly sure that the dieharder tests aren't great for short inputs.
>
> If you want to demonstrate an algorithm isn't collision resistant, a sample
> collision usually persuades people, e.g. x = f(a_1) = f(a_2).  Or at least
> provide an argument of how much work would be required to generate a
> collision.
>
>
>