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]

Message-ID: <542C2F29.3090706@larc.usp.br>
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 13:43:21 -0300
From: Marcos Simplicio <mjunior@...c.usp.br>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Design Rationale and Security Analysis of PHC candidates

Hi.

I'm not sure whether "attacked" applies to the 'Tradeoff analysis" of
Lyra2: originally there were no claims on attacks involving half of the
memory usage, but only against a very low memory usage.

We do have such claims in the new version to be submitted (assuming
Lyra2 moves to the phase in which such tweaks are allowed), and the
attack venue described does not seem to be effective in that case.

Also, the "FPGA/ASIC defense" does not take into account all tweaks
described in the documentation, although I agree with "attacked" if you
consider only the basic design and ignores this part of the document.

Anyhow, very interesting analysis!

BR,

Marcos Simplicio

On 30-Sep-14 08:12, Dmitry Khovratovich wrote:
> We have prepared a small survey of the design rationale and security
> analysis of the PHC submissions. It should help the committee to evaluate
> the candidates and the community to see the status and potential strengths
> and weaknesses of the candidates.
> 
> We are welcome to any feedback. We plan to add further information to the
> tables, possibly in the spirit of Microsoft criteria.
> 
> The permanent link is
> 
> https://www.cryptolux.org/images/4/4f/PHC-overview.pdf
>