phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] A must read...

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: <20140115071442.GB22864@openwall.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 11:14:42 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] A must read...

On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 09:20:16PM -0500, Bill Cox wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:28 PM, Bill Cox > Out of curiosity, have you tried MultHash(hash, v[addr], prevV, v[addr
> > - C]) where C is something like L2 cache size?  It might help to have
> > even more taps.
> 
> That's funny because my previous hash function was exactly that,
> though C was 1.  It did help, and was the version that "passed" the
> DieHarder tests.  I'd be curious to understand your feeling for why
> that would work better.  I discovered it through trial and error.

I guess Andy suggested this as an easy way to make some use of L2 cache
for defense, not as a way to improve randomness.

Alexander