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 20:34:19 +0100
From: Sascha Schmidt <sascha.schmidt@...-weimar.de>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests

> well, it seems that this kind of test is quite good in revealing such problems:)
Yeah, it is. Thanks for that.
> So the minimum is mcost = tcost = 1 ?
For Catena v2: yes. Your patched version of Catena v1 will require a
minimum of t_cost=1 and m_cost=18

> I would like to run second run with fixes (does it make sense?)
Yes, please do so.

> 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.
Well the submitted version is still working fine. All we changed were
some additional checks to determine if the input parameters are within
the valid range. So as long as valid parameters are used the submitted
code runs fine.