phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Reworked KDF available on github for feedback: NOELKDF

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: <CAOLP8p5JTuooMctmeqKRB=G_abMTk5gJJub2kZm4be-Y4wHsVg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 4 Jan 2014 17:30:00 -0500
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Reworked KDF available on github for feedback: NOELKDF

On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> However, by giving attackers extra parallelism (more than you make use
> of), you're letting them reduce the time factor in area*time, maybe by
> some orders of magnitude (at 16 KB "page" size, the attacker will do up
> to 2048 computations in parallel, whereas on a CPU you only do a few).
>

Good point.  I think I may have to put some throttle on parallelism, as you
suggest.


> Your argument is that they'd have to provide more memory bandwidth for
> that.  This is sound reasoning.  Yet you become unnecessarily similar to
> EARWORM in depending on memory bandwidth _instead_ of on a combination
> of die area consumed by memory _and_ bandwidth.
>
> > I think
> > we're more likely to hurt ourselves more than an attacker with limits on
> > parallel execution.  For example, I know of no recent Android phones or
> > Windows laptops that don't have some graphics acceleration ability.
> >  Attackers can use GPUs, but so can most users.  GRAM is often faster
> than
> > the CPU's main memory.  We could likely get closer to the attacker's
> speed
> > using our own GPUs by default.  With the multi-threading layout I'm
> > currently using, we could run threads on the GPU to max out GDRAM
> > simultaneously with running SIMD instructions on the CPU to max out DRAM
> > bandwidth.  GDDR5 has amazing bandwidth, so well tuned implementations
> > should use this in the future.  If I max out both my GDDR5 and DDR3
> memory
> > busses, good luck to any attacker trying to beat my speed without paying
> as
> > much as me for RAM.
>
> I agree that having a way to tune settings for much greater instruction
> level parallelism could be beneficial.  It's just that having lots of
> parallelism available all the time makes your KDF not sequential
> memory-hard anymore; it makes it only memory bandwidth bound.
>

I'm convinced.  I'll play with hashing within a page as I you suggested.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped