phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Mechanical tests (was: 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, 5 Apr 2014 21:25:58 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Mechanical tests (was: POMELO fails the dieharder tests)

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:45 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 05, 2014 at 08:19:56PM -0400, Bill Cox wrote:
>> Ok, this is all really unfair.
>
> I don't see anything unfair in any of the tests described so far.
> They're just some of the tests we can run.
>
>> Of course we should attack X exactly
>> as you say.  I think I should skip attacking H(X) (without PRK).  An
>> author with a weak X has work to do.
>
> OK.
>
>> Now I'm not going to be able to sleep for another week!
>
> Sorry about that!  But you didn't have to volunteer for this job. ;-)
>
>> Aren't we supposed to shooting the s*, and
>> talk about integrating FPGA programmability into multi-CPU thingies at
>> this point :-)
>
> (Bill is referring to a topic I had raised off-list, suggesting that we
> approach it in April.)  Yeah.  I was naive in thinking we'd have time.
>
> Alexander

I'm just kidding.  This is all great fun.  The surprise to me is that
it gets to continue past the submission deadline.  I'm going to enjoy
being an evil attacker :-)

Bill