phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] An argument for Catena-2

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]

Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 07:57:24 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] An argument for Catena-2

Bill,

On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:33:43AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 03:32:04PM -0500, Bill Cox wrote:
> > I benchmarked Catena-2, and it is running 3.4X faster than Scrypt,
> > compared to 2.6X faster for Catena-3.
> 
> Why are Catena-2 and -3 faster than scrypt, in your benchmarks?

Oh, I guess you meant Catena with "the NoelKDF multiply hash", not one
of Christian's versions.  Then this could be so, for some thread count
to memory bandwidth ratios.

Alexander