phc-discussions - RE: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB5548A701BAE3D996A7C3910A7F20@BY2PR03MB554.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:15:48 +0000
From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks

-----Original Message-----
From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com] 
>
> In actual usage, those extra parameters may in fact be tuned to match specific use cases better.

Rijndael with a block size of 256 bits would fit many applications better than AES, too. But the world has generally agreed with NIST that having fewer choices makes a better standard than being perfectly flexible to fit all situations.

I feel tuning the PHC parameters for your hardware should be more like, say, buying a shirt and pants off the rack than getting a custom-tailored suit with half a dozen measurements.

- Marsh