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: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 01:25:23 +0300
From: Solar Designer <>
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.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists