| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <533D3FFB.7080000@bindshell.nl> Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 04:03:23 -0700 From: Jeremi Gosney <epixoip@...dshell.nl> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] Tortuga issues On 4/2/2014 9:26 PM, Bill Cox wrote: > Tortuga fails on both windows and Linux for > 1MiB m_cost, due to > allocating hashing memory on the stack. Just a heads-up, the optimized implementation of Pufferfish has this `issue' as well, as it calls alloca() to dynamically allocate the sbox buffers on the stack. The reference implementation allocates memory on the heap with calloc() so this is not a problem there, but you'll blow out the stack on the optimized implementation if using an m_cost > 10 (it doesn't "go to 11.") And yes, this was done intentionally. Since it is unlikely that anyone will be using an m_cost > 10, it's a mostly-safe optimization (especially for attackers, which is largely what the optimized implementation was, rewriting the algorithm from an attacker's perspective.) For optimized defender code, where one might just be crazy enough to use an m_cost of 11, there might be some benefit in writing a custom malloc implementation that can quickly allocate heap memory without the unnecessary overhead, not unlike JTR's mem_calloc_tiny(). But I think this is implementation-specific detail that is outside the scope of the PHC. Ideally implementers should be coding to the reference implementation and making their own optimizations, using the optimized code only as, erm, a reference.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists