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: <CAOLP8p4p7EH=e8bo=ENvrEv76Yzi_5a5PFn4a3qxCfcQ-EyMCw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 05:47:36 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

On Mon, Apr 7, 2014 at 2:58 AM, Christian Forler
<christian.forler@...-weimar.de> wrote:
> 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

In that case, you might be happy to know that Catena passed :-)

Bill