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: <20150330143218.GA29153@openwall.com> 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists