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: <CA+aY-u5kdtbm9rSVj8y6gO8uPghQWSjZ3T3E54a7UgTMitWPCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 13:37:03 +0100
From: Peter Maxwell <peter@...icient.co.uk>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] POMELO fails the dieharder tests

On 5 April 2014 07:15, 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.
>
>
While I don't have the time myself to do it this weekend, it might be
better actually looking at the PHS output and what's going on in the
reference implementation because you'd expect at least a wee bit of
non-zero results.  What you've got looks like a bug somewhere.

Also, although it's probably not what's causing your results here, I'm
fairly sure that the dieharder tests aren't great for short inputs.

If you want to demonstrate an algorithm isn't collision resistant, a sample
collision usually persuades people, e.g. x = f(a_1) = f(a_2).  Or at least
provide an argument of how much work would be required to generate a
collision.

Content of type "text/html" skipped