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  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: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 14:40:21 -0700
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
Cc: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>, ben@...rr.is
Subject: Re: [PHC] Tradeoff cryptanalysis of password hashing schemes

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>> 3. I do not understand what is "lower bound for low q for Catena".
>>
>
> I meant a lower bound on the computation penalty for the kinds of q's
> we've been looking at, like 1/2, 1/4, and 1/8.  If you plug these into the
> Catena lower bound model, it says that at least a small fraction of at
> least one hash will be required :-)  Not a very practical lower bound,
> IMO.  Factors of 2^18 do tend to be important in benchmarks.
>

Their constants, indeed, do not make much sense for real-world N, but if
the proof was correct we'd hope for future improvement. Now we suppose
(until our attack is verified by someone) that the proof is just incorrect.

>
>
>> 4. I can try to break your primary submission, if you give some explicit
>> security claims for your fastest secure set of parameters. This applies to
>> all other candidates, actually.
>>
>
> The most secure parameters are those that maximize memory use while
> providing some reasonable compute-time hardening.  This is entirely machine
> dependent, as well as application dependent.
>
> However, I should be expected to defend the security of my default hashing
> parameters:
>
> #define TWOCATS_MEMCOST 20 // 1 GiB
> #define TWOCATS_PARALLELISM 2
> #define TWOCATS_BLOCKSIZE 16384
> #define TWOCATS_SUBBLOCKSIZE 64
> #define TWOCATS_TIMECOST 0
> #define TWOCATS_MULTIPLIES 2
> #define TWOCATS_HASHTYPE TWOCATS_BLAKE2S
> #define TWOCATS_LANES 8
> #define TWOCATS_OVERWRITECOST 6
>

OK, I will see (probably later) what can be done for the memory reduction
by 8 or so.


>
>
> Your power analysis per guess is very interesting.  You assume power is
> proportional to the amount of memory used (1/q), and give password crackers
> running with a high q highly reduced power.  For your Catena pebbling
> algorithm, you may be able to avoid increasing read/writes to DRAM because
> of predictable read/writes.  However, the Scrypt inspired algorithms that
> spend 50% or more of their time doing unpredictable read/writes cannot
> easily reduce their bandwidth to DRAM through a TMTO.  When a value has to
> be recomputed, it will depend on other values in DRAM, leading to more,
> rather than fewer power hungry read operations.  Memory bandwidth can also
> quickly become a bottleneck in an ASIC attack.  Certainly power will not
> drop proportionally with q.  My guess is that it will increase.
>

First, I would not suggest DRAM for its rather high power consumption in
the idle state. We assumed the use of SRAM, this particular design
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=6193183

As you may noticed, we computed energy cost separately for the leakage
power consumption and for the memory bandwidth (these numbers are available
by the link). The energy drops with q up to the point where parallel cores
consume too much energy.


>
> The Argon ASIC has some really awesome DRAM!  I want some of that DRAM
> that let's me r/w 21GiB in 0.02s!  I suspect there's a typo or I'm
> misunderstanding the table...  Also, on my machine, 1GiB hashing using the
> PHS interface to Argon takes 3.5 seconds (t_cost = 3, m_cost = 1024*1024, 1
> thread, Argon PHS defaults).  It seems to be CPU bound rather than memory
> bandwidth bound.  I would expect an ASIC to flip this situation so that it
> becomes memory bandwidth bound.  Please let me know if I've compiled with
> the wrong parameters or such!
>

This should not be a big surprise even if you do not consider our model
with 2^16 memory banks. For example, recent GPUs have total memory
bandwidth up to 400 GB/sec.


Dmitry

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists