linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] crypto: chacha20-generic - refactor to allow varying number of rounds

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Aug 2018 14:51:21 -0700
From:   Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...nel.org>
To:     Samuel Neves <samuel.c.p.neves@...il.com>
Cc:     Paul Crowley <paulcrowley@...gle.com>,
        "Jason A. Donenfeld" <Jason@...c4.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fscrypt@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        Greg Kaiser <gkaiser@...gle.com>,
        Michael Halcrow <mhalcrow@...gle.com>,
        tomer.ashur@...t.kuleuven.be, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@...gle.com>,
        "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@...yp.to>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/9] crypto: chacha20-generic - refactor to allow
 varying number of rounds

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 11:21:04AM +0100, Samuel Neves wrote:
> > The best attack on ChaCha breaks 7 rounds, and that attack requires 2^248 operations.
> 
> This number, as far as I can tell, comes from the "New features of
> Latin dances" paper. There have been some minor improvements in the
> intervening 10 years, e.g., [1, 2, 3, 4], which pull back the
> complexity of breaking ChaCha7 down to 2^235. In any case, every
> attack so far appears to hit a wall at 8 rounds, with 12 rounds---the
> recommended eSTREAM round number for Salsa20---seeming to offer a
> reasonable security margin, still somewhat better than that of the
> AES.
> 
> Best regards,
> Samuel Neves
> 
> [1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/698
> [2] https://eprint.iacr.org/2015/217
> [3] https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/1034
> [4] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2017.04.034

Thanks Samuel, I'll fix that number in the next iteration of the patchset.

- Eric