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  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: Sun, 6 Sep 2015 08:18:37 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <>
To: "" <>
Cc: "" <>
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 <> 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 <> wrote:
>> Just saw this:
>> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists