phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: 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: <20150418222523.GA2377@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:25:23 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Updated tests document

Steve, Milan -

On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 09:02:07AM +0200, Milan Broz wrote:
> And just noted, one mistake could be wrong minimal t_cost settings,
> it can measure some "unsupported" variant.
> 
> Do we have table with minimal tcost/mcost parameters supported?
> (Some reference papers mention them explicitly but not all.)

Can you please answer Milan's question above?  I think it'll be the
easiest and most reliable if you do it.

For yescrypt's PHS(), the minimums are t_cost=0 and m_cost=0.

Thanks,

Alexander