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  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: Tue, 5 May 2015 09:57:01 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Maximising Pseudo-Entropy versus resistance to Side-Channel Attacks

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 5:03 AM, <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de> wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Apr 2015, Bill Cox wrote:
>
>  On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 5:43 AM, <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de> wrote:
>>
>
>        As an example, let the password hashing function H1 be ten times
>> faster than H2, i.e., if Mallory's costs for H1 are be ten times
>>       higher than his costs for H2 (for the same budget on the defender's
>> side). Ten times faster sounds like a big deal, doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> Mallory's cost will be 100X higher in this case.  Memory*time defense
>> goes as the square of the runtime.  So, that's 6.64 additional bits of
>> strength, not 3.32.
>>
>
> No! Say H2 runs in 1 second allocating 10 MB, while H2, allocating the
> same 10 MB is ten times faster 0.1 second. If the defender is willing to
> wait 1 second, for either H1 or H2, H1 could then allocate 100 MB.
>
> cost for H1: 100 sMB (seconds * Megabyte)
>
> cost for H2: 10 sMb (sconds * Megabyte)
>
> So the pseudo-entropy for H1 is 3.32 bit larger than the pseudo-entropy
> for H2, not 6.64.
>
> Stefan


Sorry, your math is still wrong.  Mallory gets a 100X benefit.

The attacker is almost certainly memory bandwidth limited.  If he had 10X
faster RAM, he'd run 10X faster.  Therefore, H1 not only fills 10X more
memory, it takes 10X longer for Mallory to fill it.  The increase in cost
to Mallory is 100X.

There is a rare case when Mallory may be compute-time limited, but most
algorithms did not build in any compute-time hardening.  Only TwoCats,
Yescrypt and Argon had any compute-time defense in the beginning.

Another case is where H1 does 10X more memory access than H2, in which case
Mallory's cost goes up by 10X, not 100X.  The case of Lyra2 is like this,
since Lyra2 is heavily memory bandwidth limited.  I know that TMTO defense
is important to the Lyra2 team, but to make it more competitive, I still
recommend reducing it's I/O operations per memory location.  The right
number is close to 1 write and 1 read on average.  Scrypt does this, as
does TwoCats and Argon2d (not Argon2i).  Yescrypt does an extra 1/3X more
I/O operations, to solidify it's TMTO defense vs Argon2d and TwoCats, both
of which do have a trivial TMTO that benefits Mallory slightly (maybe 15%
in memory*time).

I did some password entropy estimates recently and found that the median
password in 10-million-combos can be guessed with about 13.5 million
guesses on average, or about 23.7 bits of strength.  6.4 bits is quite
useful given the low entropy we see in passwords.

While I want there to be a winner capable of solid side-channel defense
(meaning maybe Argon2i needs to get rid of it's mod operation), there also
needs to be a winner capable of strong off-line cracking defense, and that
means password-dependent memory access.  If there were to be just one
winner, it should have to be a hybrid architecture, IMO.  Lyra2 is an
option.  TwoCats didn't make it to the second round, but it actually can be
run in cache-timing resistant mode with a flag, though to make it more user
friendly, I should expose this knob properly.

Bill

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists