phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2)

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, 30 Mar 2015 17:32:18 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2)

On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 03:47:13PM +0200, Kriszti??n Pint??r wrote:
> 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?

Not that I'm aware of.

POMELO has the advantage of its entire self-contained implementation
being relatively small and simple, but this does come with those
drawbacks.

Alexander