[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <015058d6757be7cede2ce84cc0b35b2f@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 02:59:12 +0200
From: magnum <magnumripper@...hmail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Birthday paradox
On 2023-04-26 19:31, Solar Designer wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 26, 2023 at 12:54:26AM +0200, Solar Designer wrote:
>> I also notice that for PHT we actually perform two lookups currently:
>> first for offset table, and then for hash table. I guess the offset
>> table is needed because it's not filled to 100%, so that less space is
>> wasted (as the hash table's entries are larger)? Well, you'd probably
>> avoid that two-step process for PHT with tiny elements (fingerprints),
>
> magnum, maybe you've already eliminated the need for the offsets table
> by moving from 128-bit to 64-bit hashes in PHT?
I don't really know, but LM & DES does use the offset table in the exact
same way. Actually, I suspect the only real difference with the 128-bit
or larger PHT's from 64-bit is the larger ones have satellite data - the
actual hash table is otherwise 100% the same (but I'm not really sure
about it).
So that's yet another thing to explore :)
magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
