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]

Message-ID: <20150330112419.GA27328@openwall.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 14:24:19 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2)

Milan,

On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:50:44PM +0100, Milan Broz wrote:
> The updated test report (draft) is here
> 
>   https://github.com/mbroz/PHCtest/blob/master/output/phc_round2.pdf

This really needs the cross-chart we discussed - memory usage vs. real
time with increasing m_cost and fixed lowest supported t_cost.  From
your charts, it was - and still is - not apparent to me that (or
whether?) POMELO v2 performs so well (as the author claims) at large
memory settings.  And you did not include it in Table 4 ("Ability to
cover real use-case limits"), I guess because it was unclear even to you
that it's competitive for your use case.

Thanks,

Alexander