phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Fwd: [crypt-dev] Password Scrambling

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, 14 Sep 2013 17:28:36 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Fwd: [crypt-dev] Password Scrambling

Hello,

> The issue here is the hidden pebble: In the pebble game we need
> temporary storage for the computed result.

i wonder if the hidden pebble can be modelled as simply as eliminating option 3, the moving?

we don't really want to fix the number of processors, becasue then we would have an entire class of problems to solve, one for all k. maybe we can handle that by this modified ruleset. what do you think?

however this assumes the 1 hidden pebble per move, there can be more.


Saturday, September 14, 2013, 5:11:50 PM, you wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> wrote:

>> 1. place any number of pebbles if prev nodes are pebbled before the step
>> 2. remove any number of pebbles
>> 3. move any number of pebbles (combined 1 and 2)

> For example, take a bipartite graph. Then your parallel game lets it
> be done in one step, but this is only true if you have N processors.
> What's needed is limiting the number of pebbles in each step to k,
> where k is the number of processors.

> Circuit complexity is probably what we really want to deal with.