phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] The best of the best, IMO

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, 12 Apr 2014 23:59:36 -0700
From: Jeremi Gosney <epixoip@...dshell.nl>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] The best of the best, IMO

On 4/12/2014 11:49 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> Jeremi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 12, 2014 at 11:40:07PM -0700, Jeremi Gosney wrote:
>> On 4/12/2014 11:36 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
>>> In other words, Pufferfish is primarily for native code implementations,
>>> and battcrypt is primarily for scripting languages with native Blowfish.
>>>
>>> Jeremi, Steve - are the above correct summaries?
>> Yep, I'd say that is an accurate summation.
>
> Great.  Now, a way battcrypt might win over Pufferfish anyway is if we
> determine that it performs better even when both are compiled to native
> code (defensive).  This will take some testing, for both defense and
> attack.  Are you doing this sort of testing? :-)


I included JTR patches for both the reference version and the optimized
version in my submission, and plan to write patches for some of the
other candidates as well. I was hoping we could reach out to the
community (john-users mailing list?) for help with this, as I really
don't want to implement all 22 by myself.