phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] The EARWORM password hash

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]

Message-ID: <52098930.1070105@dei.uc.pt>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 02:17:36 +0100
From: Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] The EARWORM password hash

On 12-08-2013 18:32, Bitweasil . wrote:
> I really like the use of the AES intrinsic operations for performance.
>  Unfortunately, right now, this does seem to make the algorithm very
> x86-centric - I am not aware of AES hardware acceleration on ARM
> processors, which means that this wouldn't work well for anything
> not-x86.  However, it also (right now) badly cripples GPUs as they
> have to AES in software.  I'm not sure that it would offer much of a
> benefit over FPGAs, though if you've forced an attacker to FPGAs to
> get major speedups, you're doing well.

Since we don't know what area/latency/throughput tradeoffs
Intel/AMD/future ARM licensees made when implementing AES-NI, it is
possible that an FPGA/ASIC attacker could have a significant advantage
over the defender. Depending on the scheme, bitsliced GPU AES could also
perhaps be competitive.