Marsh, I agree with your comments on the different kinds of estimates, and on their (in)accuracy.
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 12:53:26AM -0500, Marsh Ray wrote: > On 06/09/2011 08:08 PM, Solar Designer wrote: > >(I never had an HP RPN calculator, but I still have two different > >Soviet-made programmable RPN calculators in working order. > > Cool. Out of curiosity, did they also call it "Reverse Polish Notation", > or did they have another name for it? In the original manuals I have, it's neither. They mention "stack memory" and explain how to use the calculators. However, other texts in Russian do refer to "reverse Polish notation" or "postfix notation". > >In the scrypt design, there was no attempt to make something too large > >to fit, but rather simply to consume more die area and increase cost. > > That's certainly valuable, but I think the biggest design payoff comes > if you can force even the most advanced attacker to move data off and on > the chip. Anything smaller than that amounts to giving large-die > attackers a huge advantage over the typical defender. Yes, perhaps, assuming that as a defender you do have to move data off and on the chip already (if not, then you're not making much use of RAM). > Of course, as Nico pointed out such a thing will not be usable > everywhere. But not everything has to run on a cell phone, right? FWIW, when I ran the scrypt 1.1.6 program with default settings on a Pentium 3 at 1 GHz, it decided to use 32 MB of RAM (based on its CPU benchmark). I guess it'd be similar on current cell phones. Alexander _______________________________________________ cryptography mailing list [email protected] http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
