phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] pufferfish

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: <533033C8.3080805@bindshell.nl>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 06:31:52 -0700
From: Jeremi Gosney <epixoip@...dshell.nl>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] pufferfish

On 3/24/2014 2:19 AM, Jeremi Gosney wrote:
> On 3/23/2014 8:43 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
>> This seems a bit complicated to me for a nice simple password hashing
>> function. 
> I will consider simplifying this a bit. I had selected
> chacha8 to fill the sboxes since it is a lot more lightweight than
> sha512, and I didn't want this part of the algorithm to be the most
> expensive part. For example, if we used sha512 instead of chacha8 to
> fill the s-boxes, an m_cost of 64, we'd need 1024 iterations of sha512.
> That's really heavy for just the initialization. But, it could indeed be
> simplified by just doing something like:
>
> state := hmac-sha512 (sha512 (salt), password)
> foreach sbox do
>     for i := 0 to 3 do
>         for j := 0 to m_cost / 4
>             sbox[i][j] = sha512 (state)
> key := hmac-sha512 (state, password)
>   
> But while it is less steps, it's also a lot more expensive. I'll
> experiment with it, but I really don't see a need to be so compute-heavy
> during the initialization phase.

I went ahead and experimented with this tonight, and while it is a fair
amount heavier, it is simpler and I do believe I like it better. So I
went ahead and commited this revision to the repository.