linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable function

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 17 Dec 2016 16:06:15 -0800 (PST)
From:   Christian Kujau <lists@...dbynature.de>
To:     "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>
cc:     Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>, Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>,
        "Daniel J . Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Eric Biggers <ebiggers3@...il.com>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@...lab.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] siphash: add cryptographically secure hashtable
 function

On Thu, 15 Dec 2016, Jason A. Donenfeld wrote:
> > I'd still drop the "24" unless you really think we're going to have
> > multiple variants coming into the kernel.
> 
> Okay. I don't have a problem with this, unless anybody has some reason
> to the contrary.

What if the 2/4-round version falls and we need more rounds to withstand 
future cryptoanalysis? We'd then have siphash_ and siphash48_ functions, 
no? My amateurish bike-shedding argument would be "let's keep the 24 then" :-)

C.
-- 
BOFH excuse #354:

Chewing gum on /dev/sd3c