phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Security concern for Catena

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: <CAOLP8p5u1uHZLC3gpB17X6saRX8RFWHueKYqeLRwe1SbQhi9kA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 21:00:31 -0500
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Security concern for Catena

Good deal!  My attack is BS, and they've already thought of it.  That's the
best case.  Sorry for not seeing how the algorithm worked in the first
place.  Catena does more or less what I was hoping: having the DAG fanout
at each node == 2, rather than 1.  Even better, they to have proved that
the scheme I was recommending is secure.  I need to review it more before I
believe it.  It's a personal flaw.

I make a lot of mistakes in reading.  From Algorithm 3 on page 12, I didn't
figure out that r(i) could have K different values, one value per outer
loop.  I am used to mathematical stuff creating new values, like r(i, k),
rather than overwriting values that have already been defined, but as a
programmer, I should have seen this.  I didn't figure out what the outer
loop was for, because all the r values get set in the first iteration, or
so I thought.

I'm glad to see I'm wrong.  Sorry about the drama.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped