phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: The best of the best, IMO

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: <CAOLP8p7Q52iYRkModCZEGeuwDyE_vXqHi0WHRruruWX9q-N=hg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 19:29:53 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: The best of the best, IMO

On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 7:05 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>wrote:

> > I've got a problem when maxMem is too low for a given runtime.  In that
> > case, It's probably best to iterate the whole algorithm a number of
> times to
> > fill up the desired runtime at maxMem.  I could add this as an external
> loop
> > around the algorithm.
> >
>
> I would suggest doing that as part of the provided API, because people
> will screw it up if you they're supposed to do it on their own.
>
> --Andy
>

At a minimum, I should probably modify the simple API (my standard one) to
use t_cost for the outer loop, rather than the cache/DRAM bandwidth
adjustment, and not give the simple API control over that ratio.  That
would make it behave as users expect, with t_cost simply increasing
runtime, and m_cost increasing memory (and runtime in my case).  The full
API could have both.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped