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: <6fe8d02b9d0745b38f37d422e248da2c@BY2PR03MB523.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 20:41:37 +0000
From: Greg Zaverucha <gregz@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] What Microsoft Would like from the PHC - Passwords14
 presentation

For side-channel resistance, "maybe" means either: "maybe side-channel resistant, more analysis required", or it's a hybrid design where side-channel information about the state is only available after some (quantified) amount of work has happened.   Lyra2 is an example candidate designed to provide this type of defense (see [1], page 31, last paragraph).  I think this is worth considering since there are some assurances on how hard it is to exploit the side-channel.

In terms of the inconsistency,  yes "Agility" shows as a criteria in the table, and in the talk we did not take a position on whether this should be a requirement (as there are good arguments for and against).  It's interesting to note that if you drop the Agility column, the candidates listed on slide 36 are the same. 

Greg

[1] https://password-hashing.net/submissions/specs/Lyra2-v1.pdf

-----Original Message-----
From: Krisztián Pintér [mailto:pinterkr@...il.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:46 AM
To: 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 :)