phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] more woes, last woes

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: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 13:58:44 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] more woes, last woes

> On April 15, 2014 at 11:28 AM Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> wrote:
>
> okay, maybe i'm too bitchy, so this is the last time i'm not going to
> complain about this, and then i let people in charge to deal with such
> things.
>
> here are argon strengths as of now:
>
> > Tradeoff-resilient (50-70 computational penalty for using 1/2 of
> > memory)
>
> what does that mean? 50-70 what?

I'm guessing that's 50%-70% or 50x-70x?


> > Fast with AES-NI (five-round AES)
>
> what does that mean? why do we care how fast it is if we plan to run
> it for 100ms anyway? what is "with" here? aes-ni is a prerequisite of
> fastness? or cause? what is the point?
>
> if the strengths section will continue to contain such vague and adhoc
> claims, its usability will not be very high.

I added this one and for EARWORM that uses single round AES. The faster the
mixing of data, the more memory you can use. So being fast is a good property,
but not being standards compliant or reduced rounds is bad for security.
Although it might not be broken it's just harder to prove that it's secure. Also
it loses a lot of speed if you don't have AES-NI.