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  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]
Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 15:53:18 +0000
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@....freebsd.dk>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
cc: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: Mechanical tests

In message <87k3b3okah.fsf@...fjaw.dfranke.us>, Daniel Franke writes:
>"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@....freebsd.dk> writes:
>
>> Dieharder looks for bits which do not carry one full bit of entropy,
>> whivh is important if you are in the market for random-looking bits.
>>
>> We are not, we are in the business of making sure that entropy is
>> not lost, and we do not care if an algorithm spits out 100 bits
>> with full entropy or 1000 bits each with only 1/10th bit of entropy.
>
>Some of the PHC candidates claim to be key derivation functions. In
>those cases we most assuredly do care about this. It would mean that the
>effective length of your derived key is only a 1/10 what you thought it
>was.

No, that depends on the length of the number of bits output, times
the amount of entropy in each bit.

>POMELO's [...]

I'm not defending POMELO in any way, I havn't even looked at it yet.

I'm just pointing out that while dieharder is a damn good too for
what it is designed for, it is not designed for what we're trying
to do here.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@...eBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists