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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:18:35 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: How about memory*time comparisons?

I see a lot of discussion about TMTO, cache timing resistance, and lately a
good discussion on compute time hardness, which is excellent.

However, I worry that we're not focusing enough on the most obvious and
important metric: memory*time.  I still have not seen a chart showing
memory*time defense.

The right way to measure memory*time is with t_cost at the minimum secure
value.  For Yescrypt, that's with t_cost == 0 and 2 rounds rather than 6
for the single-thread case, and more rounds for the multi-thread case.
You're supposed to choose the rounds to gain compute time hardness
_without_ losing memory*time defense.  Plots showing memory vs time with
higher t_cost seems wrong and misleading to me.  The same goes for plots
where the number of rounds was chosen to be too low.

Here's some very simple math for explaining why Yescrypt has the best
memory*time security: it does the lowest number of I/O operations per
memory location used.  Benchmarks that defeat this desirable property by
running Yescrypt with t_cost higher are silly, IMO.  This is simply
allowing the benchmarkers to incorrectly choose parameters for comparison,
rather than the authors.

Yescrypt in my benchmarks has the best memory*time defense in all
scenarios, followed by Lyra2 which is still excellent (not counting
Argon2d, since it seems we can't pick it - which is really too bad).

To be more fair to Lyra2, can we also try running it with the ^= operation
replaced with = in some places to lower the number of I/Os to a more
reasonable level?  Lyra2 does achieve it's TMTO resistance goal with these
operations, but we don't need it to be this strong.  Lyra2 is elegant,
simple, and has other desirable properties, but the authors lowered it's
memory*time defense to get it.  This seems easily fixable.

Thanks,
Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists