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: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:08:33 +0300
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks


On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 05:22:34AM -0500, Steve Thomas wrote:
> > On April 1, 2015 at 3:45 AM Solar Designer <> wrote:
> > Cool! Why are these for t_cost from 2 to 5, though? Where's t_cost 0
> > and 1?
> 2x to 5x are how many passes are done over memory (ignoring the initialization
> of memory). This is what I came up with here:
> This was just my attempt at coming up with useful settings to compare algorithms
> and Milan Broz was awesome enough to run them.

Oh.  Thanks.

While I see the need for normalization, I'm not convinced doing it here
for just this one dimension (TMTO resistance) helps at all, because
there are other dimensions as well (such as compute latency).
It definitely makes sense to normalize for real time and real memory
usage, like Milan did in memory_time.png, but normalization beyond that
should possibly be kept separate from the charts, or maybe we need to
produce many of them for different kinds of normalization relevant to
different kinds of attacks.

> > I think only behavior with the lowest supported t_cost matters
> > for selection of a scheme, whereas exactly how higher t_cost affects the
> > behavior is merely additional information to be used for fine-tuning.
> Yes but using minimum t_cost has problems because some algorithms aren't memory
> hard at those levels.

You appear to be re-purposing the term "memory hard" to have a stronger
meaning than what Colin's paper on scrypt specified.

> I assume when the winner is picked we'll have minimum
> settings that aren't broken. I personally think that any setting that allows for
> TMTO is broken. Thus why I started at 2x. Also there are multiple because
> battcrypt, POMELO, and Pufferfish don't use t_cost linearly. Well yescyrpt too
> but that's just the first two that are weird.

What exactly do you mean by "allows for TMTO"?  At all?  Almost all of
them do, except perhaps for battcrypt and Pufferfish where the storage
needed for the indices would be too large (due to the 4-byte and 8-byte
"block size", respectively).

So you probably mean some TMTO efficiency threshold, e.g. TMTO that
results in overall reduction of the area-time product - like what
happens in the original scrypt.  Is this so?

Do you think yescrypt allows for such beneficial TMTO at t_cost = 0, and
why?  If Table 6 in Argon team's analysis applied as-is, then we'd have
a 1.7 times increase in computation for 1/2 memory, so the TMTO would be
very slightly beneficial: area-time product reduced to 0.85 of
original.  Even if so, this is probably not a sufficient reason to go
for a higher t_cost (and lower m_cost, if the total running time is
fixed).  But this hasn't been shown to apply to yescrypt, and I expect
that it does not, due to yescrypt being somewhat different from the
generic scheme analyzed there.  Specifically, it has an increased and
more uniform coverage of V for dependencies in SMix1 (56.78% vs. 50%)
and it runs SMix2 for another 1/3 of SMix1's time (bringing the coverage
to 69.06%).  This is probably enough to change the 0.85 figure to above 1.
On top of this, yescrypt's claimed area-time product at t_cost = 0 is
lower, at (1/3+1/3)/(1/2+1/3) = 80% of what's theoretically possible for
its running time (e.g., of what TwoCats tried to achieve).

Thus, unless you're trying to achieve a higher degree of minimum TMTO
unfriendliness, I think yescrypt at t_cost = 0 achieves what's needed.

Of course, I am eager to see analysis of yescrypt by Dmitry et al. once
it's available, but for now I see no reason to just assume that we need
higher minimum t_cost.

What do you say?


Powered by blists - more mailing lists