[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28451.1396713198@critter.freebsd.dk>
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