phc-discussions - Re: Where do authors get these numbers?

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: <CAOLP8p4O=acLNHHAf_8j2euZ6ybxkneQWryapCFHAk-54cDHPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2015 22:24:00 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: Where do authors get these numbers?

BTW, the same paper says there's a 12X reduction in area-time cost against
TwoCats.  They're smoking something good, and I want some!

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:

> Just saw this:
>
>
> https://www.cryptolux.org/mediawiki-esc2015/images/3/32/Proceedings_esc2015.pdf#page=13
>
> Looks like a ton of good effort by a lot of good people, but there's a
> table claiming TwoCats generates only 1.26 bytes/cycle on a Haswell CPU
> compared to some lame speed by their algorithm.  Huh?
>
> I just measured it on a similar CPU at 0.46 cycles/byte   There are
> trade-offs,, and speed isn't everything.  It just happens to be fun :)
>  Sorry, but the authors here made a mistake.
>
> I guess I can't get mad about other peoples mistakes.... that would be
> seriously hypocritical.
>
> Bill
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped