phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Design Rationale and Security Analysis of PHC candidates

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]

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:25:51 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Design Rationale and Security Analysis of PHC candidates

"Explored" in this column means that timing attacks are possible, and the
designers outlined them and estimate their complexity&requirements to some
extent.

If timing attacks do not apply, like in your case, I write "N/A".

Does this answer your question?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Dmitry Khovratovich
> <khovratovich@...il.com> wrote:
> > It applies to the schemes that may leak secret information via timing
> > side-channels.
>
> in this case, i would refer to gambit documentation page 4 "notes on
> security"
>
> The design obeys the recommendations of Crypto Coding Standard,
> specifically:
>
> ✓ Avoid branchings controlled by secret data
>
> ✓ Avoid table lookups indexed by secret data
>
> ✓ Avoid secret dependent loop bounds
>
> what would you consider needed to classify as "explored"?
>



-- 
Best regards,
Dmitry Khovratovich

Content of type "text/html" skipped