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  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 13:52:36 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2)

On 03/30/2015 01:24 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> 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.

Yes, I'll plan to look into this soon.

> 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.

It is not there because I did not find any mention that POMELO can be used
directly as a KDF in the paper (and the use case is for KDF).
The garbage-collector attack paper http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/881 also
mentions that it is not KDF in Table 4.

Could authors clarify that?

Milan

Powered by blists - more mailing lists