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  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: Mon, 10 Nov 2014 11:23:06 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 9:22 AM, Milan Broz <> wrote:
> I run some simple tests with almost all PHC candidates
> (plus Catena2 and RIG2 submitted here).
> The long description with pictures here

> - I tried to visualize real used memory (measured by rusage()) and
> run time with variable mcost/tcost (and generate some fancy graphs:-)

at this point, we have

gambit     | N/A - cost/memory dependent

i can not make sense of it. gambit has independent time and memory
cost, with a limit. but you certainly can run m-fixed and t-fixed
tests. the t-fixed case is easy, m cost is m*8 bytes. the time is
interesting, it will be slightly dependent on m.

example test values:

m=1..1000000  t=200000
m=1000  t=200..200000

> - I run variable input/output test to check if it influences run time (see graphs).

the graphs have weird outlying points. is this some artefact of the
measurement technique? i don't think that algorithms behave that
peculiarly. in case of gambit, you have a point at 250, which is way
outside the valid range.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists