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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 11:51:37 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] escrypt 0.3.1

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:44:04AM +0400, Solar Designer wrote:
> The tentative 64-bit lane round function:
> 
> 	x += ((uint64_t)xl * s0l + s1) ^
> 	    ((uint64_t)xl * s1l + s0);
> 
> (where the 64-bit s0 and s1 come from S-box lookups, and s0l and s1l are
> their least significant 32 bits) has some significant biases
[...]
> This can be much improved by simply adding:
> 
> 	x += (uint64_t)xl * xl;

Actually it should be:

	x += (uint64_t)xl * xl;
	xl = x;

> right before the expression given above, but after "x" has been used to
> derive S-box lookup indices.  (This added multiplication occurs in
> parallel with the two S-box lookups, so there's almost no slowdown from
> it.  In fact, I've been experimenting with repeating that line (or
> rather its SSE2 equivalent) a few times.  With one or more of these
> added lines (_not_ included in the escrypt 0.3.1 code attached here),
> "analyze" output improves to:
> 
> min = 12018 max = 12638 (min+max)/2 = 12328.0 (expected 12329.0)
> diff = 788789 (expected 788983.5)
> diff_lo = 65535 diff_hi = 65536 (expected 65535.6)
> 
> (diff is still slightly lower than perfect, but the rest is great).

Further testing revealed that diff being "still slightly lower than
perfect" above was actually an artifact of the way I was measuring: I
dumped the entire local->aligned area, which contained not only V, but
also both XY and B, and there's (expected) overlap between data found in
final X or Y and B.  Analyzing V only, I see no biases anymore, e.g.:

r=8 N=2^14 NROM=2^0
Will use 0.00 KiB ROM
         16384.00 KiB RAM

n = 16777216
min = 64950 max = 66353 (min+max)/2 = 65651.5 (expected 65536.0)
diff32 = 2096628 2096661 (expected 2096640.1)
diff16 = 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 65536 avg = 65536.0 (expected 65536.0)

> For SSE2 experiments, the line to add is:
> 
> 	X = _mm_add_epi64(_mm_mul_epu32(X, X), X); \
> 
> right after the existing lines:
> 
> #define SBOX_SIMD_1(X, x, s0, s1) \
> 	x = EXTRACT64(X) & 0x0ff000000ff0ULL; \

This was correct.  In case anyone else (Bill?) wants to experiment with
this, I've attached the "patch" relative to 0.3.1, and the improved
analyze.c (now analyzes even/odd 32-bit values separately, and 8x 16-bit
"lanes" separately).

While at it, I also checked modified scrypt with Salsa20/2 using the
improved analyze.c - no significant biases there as well.

> To analyze the "x += x * x" thing (in its different variations), or
> "x = x * (x + 1)" (which is the same or almost the same, depending on
> integer widths used), I used the attached sim-mul.c program.  Curiously,
> aside from the obvious aspects (the result being always even, and there
> being some fixed points), this trivial operation behaves reasonably
> well.  The loss of 1 bit of entropy may be compensated by also using the
> value of x prior to this operation.  (In the above case, for S-box
> lookups.)  Is squaring much simpler or/and quicker in ASIC than
> arbitrary multiplication?

Bill, any comments on this?

I intend to try revising this further, but I think this approach with
the extra "x += x * x" is among candidates for the final version.

Alexander

View attachment "analyze.c" of type "text/x-c" (2517 bytes)

View attachment "escrypt-0.3.1-0.3.2.diff" of type "text/plain" (7826 bytes)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists