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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CA+hr98HBqFGMEzAYa2Vh9JkH-RuvQJP3KLum3RzuD93pK5CyjA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 15:47:13 +0200 From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net> Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2) On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote: > For practical purposes, the point is moot, and there's an easy fix of > e.g. passing the KDF output through SHA-256 or -512 if you're doing it is doable, but you need to know more about the output. namely how much bits you need if you want for example 128 bit security. in the pomelo paper, i found no claims about the security levels at all. also i find the claims about preimage and collision resistances very brief, and thus impossible to check or argue with. do we have more information somewhere on pomelo basic security?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists