phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] "Why I Don't Recommend Scrypt"

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: <CF473227.933CC%brmatthe@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 17:14:54 +0000
From: "Brian Matthews (brmatthe)" <brmatthe@...co.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] "Why I Don't Recommend Scrypt"

On 3/13/14 9:49 AM, "Tony Arcieri" <bascule@...il.com<mailto:bascule@...il.com>> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 9:43 AM, CodesInChaos <codesinchaos@...il.com<mailto:codesinchaos@...il.com>> wrote:
Servers can't afford hashing for a second and using a GB of RAM in the process

This presupposes either a high rate of password hash verifications or extremely RAM-limited servers.

A service I help run has had peak authentication rates of 1200/sec, so in the worst case that's 1.2TB of RAM. Maybe the servers are extremely RAM-limited, but they don’t have 1.2TB each. :-) In the best case assuming about 10ms/authentication spread over 4 servers that's 300/server and 3 simultaneous, so a max of 3G of RAM, which the servers do, easily, have, but we can't plan for the best case only.

Brian

Content of type "text/html" skipped