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: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:04:00 +0100
From: Milan Broz <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests

On 11/11/2014 01:17 PM, Sascha Schmidt wrote:
>> But it is possible I did something wrong of course...
> Well after all it looks like a simple misunderstanding. Catena isn't
> supposed to be run with t_cost=lambda=0. In this case only
> 2*(garlic-min_garlic) calls to blake2b are made. This explains why
> there is no difference between BRG and DBG and why your patched Catena
> needs more memory.
> Not catching this kind of mistake is clearly our fault and we already
> uploaded a version with checks to our github repository.


well, it seems that this kind of test is quite good in revealing such problems:)

So the minimum is mcost = tcost = 1 ?

I would like to run second run with fixes (does it make sense?)

The question is if the submitted PHC Catena version shouldn't be updated as well...

I would like just to track what exactly is run (released version) and
not just some random devel git tree state.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists