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: <396623624.130531.1427875327168.JavaMail.open-xchange@oxuslxltgw02.lxa.perfora.net> Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 03:02:07 -0500 (CDT) From: Steve Thomas <steve@...tu.com> To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net> Subject: OMG we have benchmarks https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_Lenovo_X230_i5_16G/mc_cost_2/memory_time_round.png Note I believe there might be a problem with some of it: battcrypt on 5x and POMELO on 3x and 5x. Since those algorithms don't have t_costs for those and I think they are run at lower settings. But ignoring that these are the best benchmarks I've seen since they're normalized for rounds across memory and time vs memory (instead of having t_cost or m_cost as an axis).