phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Where do authors get these numbers?

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: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:16:31 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Where do authors get these numbers?

What CPU exactly are you testing on? That one has 2.1 GHz. We detected quite big difference in cycle/byte performance on similar CPU with different frequencies.

On Sep 6, 2015, at 7:09, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:

> Just saw this:
> 
> https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2015/images/3/32/Proceedings_esc2015.pdf#page=13
> 
> Looks like a ton of good effort by a lot of good people, but there's a table claiming TwoCats generates only 1.26 bytes/cycle on a Haswell CPU compared to some lame speed by their algorithm.  Huh?
> 
> I just measured it on a similar CPU at 0.46 cycles/byte   There are trade-offs,, and speed isn't everything.  It just happens to be fun :)  Sorry, but the authors here made a mistake.
> 
> I guess I can't get mad about other peoples mistakes.... that would be seriously hypocritical.
> 
> Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped