phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests

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, 11 Nov 2014 20:04:00 +0100
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
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.

Hi,

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.

Thanks,
Milan