phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

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: Wed, 01 Apr 2015 10:15:42 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

On 04/01/2015 10:02 AM, Steve Thomas wrote:
> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_Lenovo_X230_i5_16G/mc_cost_2/memory_time_round.png
> 
> Note I believe there might be a problem with some of it: battcrypt on 5x and
> POMELO on 3x and 5x. Since those algorithms don't have t_costs for those and I
> think they are run at lower settings.

Nope, it is just empty legend (otherwise it would switch colors among series:)
I'll mark them with some strike-out font then...

It is temporary chart, there is wrong calculation for Catena still...

> But ignoring that these are the best benchmarks I've seen since they're
> normalized for rounds across memory and time vs memory (instead of having t_cost
> or m_cost as an axis).

I'll update my report once it is complete.

Milan