phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHC: survey and benchmarks

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: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:14:45 +0100
From: Alex Biryukov <alex.biryukov@....lu>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC: survey and benchmarks

Nice study.

Argon v2. is also not benchmarked. It is interesting to see how it
performs, should be much more efficient than Argon v1.

Regards,
Alex

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Jakob Wenzel <jakob.wenzel@...-weimar.de>
wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 23.03.2015 16:45, Bill Cox wrote:
> > Hopefully they will take some feedback for corrections.  They
> > mistakenly call Yescrypt non-RAM hard and lump it with Makwa.
> > They did not test it with significant men size either...
> >
>
> > On Mar 23, 2015 7:08 AM, "Jean-Philippe Aumasson"
> > <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com
> > <mailto:jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>> wrote:
> >
> > This just appeared: http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/265
> >
>
> Hi all,
>
> thanks to the authors for the benchmarking paper. Nevertheless, we do
> not agree with the results for Catena since the authors in the paper
> did not consider the current version of Catena (Catena v3.1) which can
> be found here:
>
>
> http://www.uni-weimar.de/fileadmin/user/fak/medien/professuren/Mediensicherheit/Research/Publications/catena-v3.1.pdf
>
> They refer to the version from December 2014 which does not contain
> the latest tweaks such as:
>  - reduced-round version of blake
>  - additional random layer
>  - changed initialization phase
>  - removed SHA-512 from the parameter recommendations for the underlying
>    hash function
>  - ...
>
> They also ignored the instance Catena-DBG, which was already mentioned
> in the ePrint version. Before this paper will be used in the decision
> process for the winner of the PHC, we would kindly asked the authors
> to analyze the latest version of Catena (Catena v3.1).
>
> Best regards,
> Jakob
> (on behalf of the Catena design team)
>
> - --
> Jakob Wenzel
> Research Assistant
> Chair of Media Security (Prof. Lucks)
> Bauhausstraße 11 (Room 217)
> 99423 Weimar
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1
>
> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJVEDiEAAoJEDFlRQsgEDnD6wgH/3HZK5Afzdo6ZIW8g/CvQyyT
> etjxmTdiNsydYl5lwVoPZBn+YN0m+pk1lQOQxeYRNBiLFQZ0vYUeDJPMOHWlELJh
> 0X5ZdbRGsIrjtmXuYqoNGsZibvHpoeFfTQdG19zYxVeCJD26ayfzc39tkDUS95X7
> FbVR+Xhp0LBYgqaMwTfflZ8pwfYBKvt+Bxtzlx8/4ext92IjKO8UZ78ILdZ8mhm2
> 97QQ87tNrAzMm4mj/qaFQh1xTkXubVLZEtHYcGNRrjvcjG2Hv7lOvDkXuMICFllA
> XOtDZ1zyFXoIYNhjJ7BqmKtYwXC8lB8y2DqFh1dCCPrE9/ywkaxzwdqAITprV+M=
> =ctt9
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped