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: <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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists