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: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 11:45:26 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

On Wed, Apr 01, 2015 at 03:02:07AM -0500, Steve Thomas wrote:
> 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).

Cool!  Why are these for t_cost from 2 to 5, though?  Where's t_cost 0
and 1?  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.

Also, are the Lyra2 results included here for 1 or 2 threads?

I assume the rest are for 1 thread?

Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists