phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] What Microsoft Would like from the PHC

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: <CAOLP8p6D_+Rh_jM0yy1LZiOaiB5hJ1gtdjmSXLhQdrhGYzTyfg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 18:58:05 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] What Microsoft Would like from the PHC - Passwords14 presentation

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 5:29 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
wrote:Is Pufferfish v0 really side-channel resistant?  I think it's similar
to

> bcrypt in this respect, and we don't consider bcrypt to be cache-timing
> attack resistant, or do we?
>
> (I don't imply that all other PHC candidates with a "Yes" in that column
> are necessarily side-channel resistant.  I merely noticed this one
> apparent error.  There might be more.)
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Alexander
>

The authors also got yescript wrong in this column, with a "no" for cache
timing resistance.  It obviously has the same cache timing resistance
characteristics as the other hybrid designs, which are labelled with
"maybe" rather than "no".

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped