phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] TigerPHS paper and code ready for review

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: <CAGiyFde6GHwy-3XSmsSCQr5qYMEiTpKyz68x0mKPNTiOekWKfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 22:20:04 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] TigerPHS paper and code ready for review

You may just call it Tiger, we'll figure out that as a PHC submission
it's a PHS ;-)

Well there's already a hash function called Tiger, and there's also a
Tiger2, so maybe not a good idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_(cryptography)

On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 9:43 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:
> Based on a lot of excellent feedback, I've updated TigerKDF, which I'm
> now calling TigerPHS, for Password Hashing Scheme rather than Key
> Derivation Function.  The latest version of my paper is at:
>
> http://waywardgeek.net/TigerPHS.pdf
>
> Code can be viewed/cloned at:
>
> https://github.com/waywardgeek/tigerphs
>
> I've updated the benchmarks based on Alexander's feedback.
>
> After the excellent discussion on PBKDF2 and HKDF, I've switched from
> PBKDF2-BLAKE2S to HKDF-SHA256 for initial and final key derivation,
> with Blake2s still used in the memory hashing part.  Every input other
> than stopMemCost is now hashed in the initial hkdfExtract, conforming
> to the author's description of how to do a "strongly secure" key
> derivation.
>
> I've reduce the number of "slices" from 16 to 4, as per Solar
> Designer's recommendation.
>
> The paper has been improved as well.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Bill