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]

Message-ID: <20140406004555.GC19305@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 04:45:55 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Mechanical tests (was: POMELO fails the dieharder tests)

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