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: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 12:59:53 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...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 3:17 AM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> I like this approach, though I think for benchmarking we can just have the
> authors choose the parameters.  I agree with Dmitry that parameters should
> typically not be chosen by the end-user, though I think the number of
> rounds, number of lanes, and other tunable parameters could be selected
> based on the number of threads the user allows, and the total memory to be
> hashed.  For benchmarking, authors should pick minimum t_cost they feel is
> secure, and a number of rounds that give the best memory*time defense with
> good compute time hardness.

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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists