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: <CA+hr98FRJ2jeyMymvPMD1GR8_2dX8xZgxzT3K5=E5uYA1iTkGQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 09:45:50 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] What Microsoft Would like from the PHC - Passwords14 presentation

On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:

> It obviously has the same cache timing resistance characteristics as the other hybrid designs, which are labelled with "maybe" rather than "no".

there is no such thing as sorta cache timing resistant. it either is
or isn't. if it isn't, we can talk about how hard to exploit.

the talk is not exactly consistent with itself in some regards. the
table at the end is very strict. but the earlier slides are much more
tolerant. i suspect the table was made early, and the slides were
modified later, but March will correct me on this one. the same thing
can be said about primitive replaceability. it is unsure in the
exposition, but counted in the table.

anyway, i think the table is fine, because gambit is in the 4 good
ones, so i agree :)