phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder tests

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]

Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2014 12:17:18 -0400
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder tests

Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> writes:

> My fix needed some fixing:
>
>     // load salt into S
>     for (i = inlen; i < inlen + saltlen; i++)   ((unsigned char*)S)[i]
> = ((unsigned char*)salt)[i];
>     for (i = inlen + saltlen; i < 160; i++) ((unsigned char*)S)[i] = 0;
>
> This works better.  With the modified, code, POMELO now passes the
> first test, the Birthday test.  This is, I believe, similar to
> Alexander's favorite test of counting collisions in small integers,
> such as 32-bit integer outputs.  Any PHS that passes the Birthday
> test, if then run through a cryptographically strong hash such as
> SHA2, will then pass any test for randomness.  That's why I consider
> it the most important test, since most PHS entries will pass their
> output one last time through a cryptographic hash.  If you pass the
> Birthday test, and use a cryptographic final hash, you're golden so
> far as output randomness goes.


Actually, in order to match the spec it should be

    for (i = 128; i < saltlen + 128; i++)
        ((unsigned char*)S)[i] = ((unsigned char*)salt)[i];
    for (i = saltlen + 128; i < 160; i++)
         ((unsigned char*)S)[i] = 0;

I confirm that the birthday test passes after making this fix.