phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Panel: Please require the finalists to help with 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: <CAOLP8p7=66Z3iVaTA-LyJ4ACk55K9x+Cp4=z=u86Czqf-FcUHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 08:29:01 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Panel: Please require the finalists to help with benchmarks

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 3:59 AM, Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
wrote:

> We could try to develop several typical scenarios for benchmarking.
> Maybe people from industry could contribute with usecases.
>
> For example:
> Scenario 1 (cryptocurrency mining on x86 desktop):
>   maximum time: 1 second
>   maximum memory: 4 GB
>   maximum threads: unlimited
>
> Scenario 2 (password-based key derivation on x86 desktop):
>   maximum time: 5 seconds
>   maximum memory: 2 GB
>   maximum threads: unlimited
>
> Scenario 3 (password hashing on an authentication server):
>  maximum time: 0.1 seconds
>   maximum memory: 500 MB
>   maximum threads: 2
>
> The measurements are done on the following metrics (the more the better)
>   metric 1: amount of memory filled
>   metric 2 to maximize: total bandwidth
>   metric 3 to maximize: total amount of computations, excluding memory
> access (e.g., total count of MUL/ADD/XOR operations, or taken with
> weights equal to their Haswell (for example) latencies)
>   metric 4 to maximize: computational latency (hardening), i.e. the
> length of the longest chain of computations expressed as above.
>
>
> The designers then select 1 or more instances  (parameter sets) of
> their scheme, which compete in all scenarios. Then we look at the
> rankings. It'd be great to have a single instance that perform well in
> all scenarios (not necessarily being the winner in any).
>
> Of course, we are looking for more metrics and more scenarios.
>
> Dmitry Khovratovich
>

Exactly.  I completely agree with this approach.  Rather than bury your
main idea debating scenarios, can we restate your idea plainly?

It sounds like you're suggesting that authors choose optimal parameters to
compete well on memory, bandwidth, and computation simultaneously for each
scenario.  That sounds really good to me.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped