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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d2678995186744cc801bfdb19da019c6@BY2PR03MB523.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2014 21:39:14 +0000
From: Greg Zaverucha <gregz@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Questions about Lyra

Hi
After reading the Lyra ePrint and looking at the reference implementation I have a few questions about the spec (Algorithm 2, page 10).  I guess the designers would be the best to answer but others who've looked at the design might have input as well.

1. For line 16: "col <- M[row][C-1] mod C", doesn't this require multiprecision modular arithmetic in the general case?  C will usually fit in a machine word, but elements of M will probably not.  In the reference implementation C is hard-coded to 64, so this is a non-issue.  Will C always be a power of two?   It's my preference that key derivation not depend on multiprecision arithmetic.

2. On line 17, how is |R| defined?  I initially thought it was the number of bits required to represent R, but in the reference implementation |R| is fixed to 64.  Maybe it would be better to fix |R| = 64 and require R < 2^64. The implementation of line 17 is slightly more awkward when |R| varies.

3. On lines 16 and 17 a byte array must be converted to an integer, but the endianness is not specified.  In the reference implementation the endianness of the processor is used; so a different result would be computed on a big and little endian machines.

4. Does the paper define what the initial state should be?  In the code it's the Blake2b IV, but for another choice of f how should it be chosen?

A general comment: you might consider breaking up the current "Setup" phase (lines 1-8) into two pieces, Setup (lines 1-3) and Initialization (lines 4-8), because after line 3 the input password is no longer required and can be zeroized.  Or maybe make Setup be lines 1-3 and call lines 3-19 "Derive" or similar.

Looking forward to your response, thanks
Greg

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ