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]

Message-ID: <CAEw2jfzrCXxH-PS6r5u6g+8_bja408Q0vbwKeXH+j+JnV+EKwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 12:32:25 -0400
From: Patrick Mylund Nielsen <patrick@...rickmylund.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder tests

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 2:15 AM, Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com> wrote:

> POMELO is one of a handful of PHC candidates which are not constructed
> around any established cryptographic hash function or cipher. POMELO's
> security claims include collision-resistance. Unfortunately, its output
> fails the dieharder tests.
>
>
If it's a goal for the output to be indistinguishable from random, then run
many different test batteries (including NIST's), and focus more on whether
the outputs produce the same results as truly random data than whether they
pass the tests or not.

Content of type "text/html" skipped