phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] 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: <FAE13ADB-ED41-463B-855D-3EEC666D0406@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:18:37 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Where do authors get these numbers?

There was a mistake related to our misunderstanding of Twocats specification, and this claim was removed in later versions of this report.

Sent from my iPad

On Sep 6, 2015, at 7:24, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com> wrote:

> 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