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: <CALiR+uP=0JGcTiqWifCdzQBjGfRzkT2hes9uqBYNg5V7+g6AHA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 14:02:53 +0200
From: Sascha Schmidt <sascha.schmidt@...-weimar.de>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Updated tests document

2015-04-16 9:02 GMT+02:00 Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>:
> On 04/16/2015 08:53 AM, Milan Broz wrote:
> Do we have table with minimal tcost/mcost parameters supported?
> (Some reference papers mention them explicitly but not all.)
Steve Thomas started one here:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.security.phc/2550

For Catena:
t_cost in [1,255]
m_cost in [1,63]

A t_cost of 1 doesn't provide any additional memory hardness, but
maybe suitable for some scenarios.