phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Updated tests document

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: <55236F42.8060405@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 07:46:42 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Updated tests document

On 04/06/2015 11:17 PM, Solar Designer wrote:
> Milan,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2015 at 11:10:27PM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
>> It would be very nice to test also parallel attribute but then functions should
>> export some unified interface.
>> If it is not too late, maybe addinng m_parallel to PHS() as a tweak...
> 
> I know it's not right for your use case, but for password hashing on a
> server the parallelism would be external to PHS(), so maybe you can
> simply have your own wrapper start multiple independent threads, for
> independent password hashes computed with their own PHS() calls?  And
> provide a chart showing throughput in requests/second vs. memory usage
> (e.g. 128 KB to 128 MB), at the lowest supported t_cost and the maximum
> number of concurrent threads supported in hardware (e.g. 8 on a
> currently typical quad-core CPU).  I'd find such results helpful.

Hi Alexander,

I can try but I am quite busy this week so cannot promise anything soon...

Thanks,
Milan