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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 18:02:56 -0500
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] integer multiply was not always constant-time

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> BTW, let's not forget that even MUL/IMUL were not constant time on 486
> and prior (and it's similar on similarly old non-x86 archs).  So if we
> care about being timing-safe even on CPUs this old, we should probably
> avoid multiplication in the portion where we avoid cache timing leaks.
>
> Alexander

I think multiply speed remains data-dependent on ARM Thumb
architectures (I've not checked which).  On pretty much all of these
older machines, I think setting the number of multiplies per loop to
zero is probably the right thing to do.  Not only are the multiplies
not constant time, but they take a bunch more cycles, and there's no
multiple-issue instruction unit, so this is all in-line with the
runtime, and will significantly reduce the memory we can fill.  It's
probably best just to fill memory as rapidly as possible on these
machines.

Bill

Powered by blists - more mailing lists