phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] "Attack on the iterative compression function"

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: <20150419031746.GA5106@openwall.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 2015 06:17:46 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] "Attack on the iterative compression function"

On Sat, Apr 18, 2015 at 10:55:54PM -0300, Marcos Antonio Simplicio Junior wrote:
> After the initialization, though, the row is always read in the same order, so no further latency penalties apply as the recomputation depth grows.

Why does this mean no further latency penalties?  The recomputation
algorithm is unlikely to encounter the same missing row again before the
row has to be thrown out of the algorithm's temporary storage.  And the
row's columns are still needed in reverse order of computation, so the
first-computed column, which has to be stored, is the last-needed one.
Am I missing something?

Thanks!

Alexander