phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: Updated tests document (version 2)

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: <553E445A.6060903@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 16:14:50 +0200
From: Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Updated tests document (version 2)

On 04/23/2015 06:20 PM, Bill Cox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 1:41 AM, Milan Broz <gmazyland@...il.com
> <mailto:gmazyland@...il.com>> wrote:
> 
> I updated PHC candidates test with latest run
> 
> https://github.com/mbroz/PHCtest/blob/master/output/phc_round2.pdf
> 
> - many code updates announced here (including Argon, Catena, MAKWA,
> etc) - added parallel test - I used newer machine for test (Lenovo
> x240 i7 CPU) - Added pwxround=2 yescrypt to normalized test -
> yescrypt now uses -opt version (not reference) (I did not add it to
> other test these were meant to use defaults). - All tested passwords
> are now randomly generated (/dev/urandom) (previously were hardcoded
> in test program)
> 
> 
> This is a great update, and I know how hard this is.  Thanks for
> doing it!
> 
> Two things would improve it, IMO.  First, improve contrast.  Being
> massively color blind, I cannot read half of the lines on your
> charts.  Make sure that 2 of 3 of the RGB values are no higher than
> half (128), if you can, and if you can only do that with one color,
> make it green or blue, not red.

I tried to update linetypes, it should be better now for you,
please check it.

(Unfortunately I found only usable color palette for 8 series, so
here it repeats colors just with different symbols - but is should be readable.)

Also changed PPC test to use up to 160 processes.
raw images here
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_PPC64/r160_parallel_0/parallel_threads_160_0.png
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_PPC64/r160_parallel_1/parallel_threads_160_1.png
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_PPC64/r160_parallel_2/parallel_threads_160_2.png
  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mbroz/PHCtest/master/output/round2_PPC64/r160_parallel_3/parallel_threads_160_3.png

> The other thing is that we're still missing what I feel is the most
> important charge for your use case: full disk encryption.  There is
> simply no reaon not to use the multi-core capability of the machine.
> Most entries do not have a parallelism parameter, but it is an
> absolutely critical feature for FDE.

yes, but the whole testsuite is based on using PHC() function prototype.

So either we should implement an another common interface for all candidates
or I can run some targeted tests later (on finalists).

(Authors should decide how to map the parallel attribute to internals.
There can be parallelism on more levels etc - I do not want to
make a decision how to map that parameter.)

Thanks,
Milan