[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAOLP8p4+MUd+PC13oLi6sjNLUfABC6VQvB=EYpMMUhu4QV6kiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2014 08:40:40 -0500
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] What's your favorite entry so far, and why?
>
> Thanks - that's really useful. So to thwart a GPU style attack at the
> moment is fairly easy but the FPGA/ASIC minimum lower bound is a fair bit
> higher than I had expected (I was thinking ~10Mb range but looks like 32Mb
> or thereabouts is going to be the minimum).
>
The 10MB range protects against low-end FPGA attacks and also cheaper ASICs
built in non-cutting-edge processes. That Virtex part is a die-stacked
monster that will cost you > $1,000. A 20nm ASIC will cost you millions
just to get your first part. A more cost effective threat is probably 10
$100 FPGAs in parallel, and they'll have a lot less memory than 10MB each.
There is a sweet spot in trying to fit in a server's cache while busting
out of GPU and even most FPGA on-chip memory. For server-side KDF, it's
not a bad solution. For server-side, I'd like to see extra protection in
the form of the blakerypt-style master keys that never hit disk, because a
server database is a far higher value target than a user's PC, and that
low-memory KDF is weaker than what a user can do on his PC.
For running on a user's PC, in applications such as file encryption, I
think we should take advantage of the memory bandwidth ratios to limit an
attacker to 10X-ish in price-performance advantage. Cache resident KDFs
will not get us there. The best protection for single-user machines is to
hammer the DRAM interface, IMO.
Bill
Content of type "text/html" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists