phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Added "lanes" and 3 hash functions as inputs

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2014 07:12:39 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Added "lanes" and 3 hash functions as inputs

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 07:46:29PM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
>> I'm still making last-minute upgrades.  I added a "lanes" parameter to
>> the "extended" interface which normally is set to the number of 32-bit
>> ints in the hash function in use.  For SHA256 and Blake2s, it is 8,
>> and for SHA512 and Blake2b, it's16.  This was meant to match the SIMD
>> units on high-end CPUs, but it works against low-end CPUs.  Instead of
>> calculating 8 or 16 lanes in parallel, a low-end CPU can now do just
>> one, if it has no SIMD unit.
>>
>> The architecture had a pluggable hash function architecture before,
>> but Blake2s was the only option.  I've added three more: Blake2s,
>> SHA256, and SHA512.  Naturally it took some work to make it really
>> easy to add new ones.
>
> Having the number of lanes tunable is great.  Having it depend on the
> chosen underlying crypto primitive is not great.

Yep.  That's why I changed it to make it tunable.  I am still using
the width of the hashing function to choose a default, though.  This
is one of the easiest parameters to automatically choose, and I've got
a function to auto-guess good parameters, so I'll add this.  However,
for choosing a default that a whole sales team would use, for example,
I need a machine independent guess.  I'm having trouble coming up with
one better than the hash function width.

>> I still feel like a pluggable large memory block hash function would
>> be a good thing, but if mine's the only one to do such a thing,
>> there's not really much point.
>
> Doesn't escrypt have a large block multi-lane hash function like this?
> It's not pluggable, but I'm not sure it needs to be.  For now, it can be
> part of a password hashing scheme.  And yes, I'm still working on
> improving this component in escrypt, and it still needs a name...
> although most likely I'll call it pwxform, for "parallel wide
> transformation", even though it may be scaled down to one 64-bit lane.
>
> Alexander

+1 for pwxform.  That's a good one, IMO.

I'm not sure if there is any benefit in pulling out the memory block
function as a stand-alone widget.  I did a KISS memory-hard algorithm
a few nights ago just to see what it would look like, and except for
the large block hash function, it was very simple.  It had no
cache-timing attack resistance, no memory leak resistance, and nothing
tunable except total memory.  However, it seemed like a sweet little
function.  The memory block function could easily have been shared
between that and TwoCats.

Bill