Message-ID: <CAGiyFddRSUEaUO4iMJpWjvBKwjDNjo1i3tLvszBkhWq1E_kJXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 10:28:26 +0200
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Another PHC candidates "mechanical" tests (ROUND2)

I second Hongjun's argument about strong crypto: as-fast-as-possible
primitives need as few operations as possible, thus short chains of
operations need be crypto strong. OTOH, password hashing doesn't need
ultra high speed, thus can afford a high number of operations to
ensure that, even with suboptimally-secure building blocks, many
iterations will guarantee collision/preimage/pseudorandomness strength
etc.

MD5 with 256 instead of 64 rounds would probably be secure, for example :-)


On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 5:11 AM, Hongjun Wu <wuhongjun@...il.com> wrote:
> Dear Alexander,
>
> First, I'd like to point out that the security of preimage/collision of
> Pomelo (and some PHC Second round candidates) is somehow similar to the
> security of the initialization of stream ciphers, rather than similar to the
> security of hash function in which there is no secret key.
>
> When I was designing POMELO, the first priority is to ensure that the
> password cannot be recovered due to collision (it follows from my experience
> on the cryptanalysis and design of stream ciphers).  It is the reason that
> the first half operations of POMELO are strictly revertible so as to prevent
> collision, but to achieve diffusion.
>
> Some confusion/diffusion idea of POMELO partly comes from my stream cipher
> HC (i.e., using expansion and table lookups).  Since its publication in
> 2004, HC remains as a very strong cipher.
>
> Anyway, I will provide more analysis of POMELO in the updated report.
>
> BTW, I think that it is not necessary to use strong crypto primitive (such
> as strong hash function) in the design of password  hashing scheme,
> especially if we want to process large amount of memory in a fast way.
> Eventually it turns out that a number of second round candidates need to cut
> the round number significantly.   I feel that it is no longer true that
> those PHC candidates are based on strong crypto primitives, although they
> are still very strong.
>
> Maybe we can now say that most of the second round candidates are no longer
> built on strong crypto primitives (such as strong hash functions or strong
> block ciphers) to achieve their security,  not just POMELO itself.
>
> Best Regards,
> hongjun
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 02:08:34AM +0800, Hongjun Wu wrote:
>> > 3)  A strong hash function is not needed for POMELO.
>> >      I believe that POMELO  is much stronger than any existing hash
>> > function for the KDF/PH applications.
>>
>> Most likely it is, but the confidence in it is currently lower than e.g.
>> in SHA-2 family functions.
>>
>> > (For performance reason, a strong
>> > hash function has to be sufficiently fast and small.  So even in a very
>> > strong hash function, not many operations can be used for processing a
>> > message block.)
>> >      In the POMELO report, I did not talk much about POMELO against
>> > preimage and collision attack. I can explain more in the updated report.
>> >      When I was designing POMELO v2,  only the memory hardening security
>> > worth my analysis.   The preimage and collision security are trivial.
>>
>> Of course, it's much easier (in fact, trivial as you say) to achieve
>> preimage and collision resistance in PHC candidates than in fast
>> cryptographic hashes.  The problem, though, is that "much easier" and
>> even "trivial" do not necessarily imply "has been achieved".
>>
>> If you tried to, I think you would be able to deliberately construct a
>> PHC candidate that would appear OK at first glance, but would not be
>> preimage or/and collision resistant.  Right?  And this might happen
>> unintentionally, too.
>>
>> > Simply speaking, the state size of POMELO is too large comparing to a
>> > hash
>> > function, and the operations used in a cryptographic hash function
>> > (compression function) is much less than that used in POMELO.
>> >      Some example: considering SHA-512, there are only 64+64 = 128
>> > simple
>> > steps to compress a 128-byte message (if we consider message expansion
>> > as
>> > 64 steps); while in POMELO v2, there are about 3*256 = 768 steps when
>> > m_cost = 0, t_cost = 0.     In POMELO v2, in order to prevent password
>> > hashing being too fast, it is required that m_cost + t_cost >= 5.  It
>> > means
>> > that POMELO v2 consists of at least 32*256+512 = 8704 steps, far more
>> > than
>> > that in a compression function of SHA-512.
>>
>> Simply comparing the number of operations is not convincing enough.
>> For example, what if most of those cancel out, or are reversible, or if
>> there are tiny biases that add up to something significant after so many
>> steps?  This is almost certainly not the case, but until shown otherwise
>> the possibilities are there.
>>
>> A more realistic risk is issues with how the password and salt inputs
>> are processed early on.  Things like the original bcrypt $2$'s trivial
>> collisions for "ab" vs. "abab", etc.
>>
>> I think it's reasonable that people want an analysis of POMELO's basic
>> security.
>>
>> Alexander
>
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists