phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Bandwidth hardened algorithms?

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAOLP8p4wqVh9=pxM6mbRUUnxweBVYFpwMiGD8JmZzFc79q5e1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:56:13 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Bandwidth hardened algorithms?

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:33 AM, denis bider <pwhashing@...isbider.com>
wrote:

> Sounds plausible to me, and probably better than what the current crop of
> crypto currencies are using.
>
> In this design, is a 32 GiB ROM really needed? On the one hand, this
> excludes lots of users; and on the other, if an algorithm requires this
> much to be secure, then it's not going to be secure in 2 years.
>
> Why wouldn't, say, 4 GiB be sufficient?
>
> Alexander suggested 32 GiB as a way to avoid bot-nets.  I think he has a
point.  However, if we are not trying to defend against bot-nets, then 1-4
GiB would probably be better.

Content of type "text/html" skipped