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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALW8-7+1NPtBtHy4HP37mdARpHzVXeu8_4UrkHmnD6sUiLAiRg@mail.gmail.com> 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