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  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 <>
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 <> 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


Powered by blists - more mailing lists