phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical 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: <53424CAD.8080105@uni-weimar.de>
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 08:58:53 +0200
From: Christian Forler <christian.forler@...-weimar.de>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

On 05.04.2014 17:53, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
 [...]
> 
> I'm not defending POMELO in any way, I havn't even looked at it yet.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that while dieharder is a damn good too for
> what it is designed for, it is not designed for what we're trying
> to do here.

A common use-case for a password hashing schemes is password based key
derivation. Cryptographers assume that keys to be random. This
assumption is crucial for the security of almost all cryptographic
schemes. Therefore, (for an adversary) the output of a good password
hashing scheme should be indistinguishable from random. Hence, dieharder
is IMHO a valid sanity check tool.

Best regards,
Christian

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (535 bytes)