phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] blakerypt sequential memory-hard 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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <18710065916.20131205090354@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 09:03:54 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] blakerypt sequential memory-hard function

Andy Lutomirski (at Thursday, December 5, 2013, 2:26:19 AM):
> Using 2^f_time as the iteration count seems unnecessarily restrictive
> -- is there any reason not to just use f_time?

IMO such things should not be part of the algorithm unless intrinsic,
and also should not be part of the submission. it is part of the
interface.

but if we are at it, this could be used as a sort of middle ground
parametrization: take f_a and f_b parameters, and use f_time = f_a <<
f_b . this grants fine control over f_time even if f_a and f_b are
small, like bytes. but still scalable up to ridiculous levels
(255*2^255).

but again, this is part of the interface, and not the algorithm.