RunHaiku 4.5repeat 1
Plan-execute-verify on OWASP vs NIST on password hashing
claude-haiku-4-5-20251001__plan-execute-verify__research-password-hashing__r1
Score
0.750
- Cost
- $0.578
- + $0.065 judging
- Latency
- 6m 18s
- setup 0.0s, grading 5.3s
- Turns
- 97
- Tool calls
- 88
- Subagents
- 0
- Tokens in / out
- 1.5M / 34k
- 1,334,423 read from cache
Did the design run?
- Run completed: heldharness.run-completedThe environment was built, the architecture returned and grading finished, none of them throwing.
- No API failures: heldharness.apiNo model call failed at the API.
- Every call ended: heldharness.calls-endedEvery call ended with a result, or was stopped by the run's own limits.
- No harness tool denied: heldharness.harness-toolsThe sandbox guard never denied a harness tool, nor a tool the session itself offered.
- Tool servers connected: heldharness.mcp-connectedEvery tool server the harness gave a call was connected when the session started.
- No foreign tool servers: heldharness.mcp-hermeticNo call loaded a tool server the harness did not give it.
- Builtin tools: heldharness.builtin-toolsA check recorded with the run.
- Structured replies arrived: heldharness.structured-outputEvery call that asked for structured output and ran to the end got it.
- No silent fallbacks: heldharness.not-degradedNo phase fell back on a default (an empty plan, a default winner) instead of its output.
- Judge answered: heldharness.judgeAt least one grading call returned a usable verdict.
- The plan was a plan: heldplan-execute-verify.planThe planner’s reply was read through its schema and held at least one step.
- Every verdict was read: heldplan-execute-verify.verdictsEvery review round ended with a verdict read from the schema reply, not a default.
- The loop did what its verdicts said: heldplan-execute-verify.loopEvery verdict that called for a revision got one, and nothing was revised without such a verdict.
- Each call was shown the right tools: heldplan-execute-verify.toolsThe planner was shown no tools, the verifier the read-only ones, and the executor and reviser the full toolset.
Phases
Drawn from the phase records: timing and cost per call, no tool calls or messages.
| Phase | Duration | Cost | Turns | Tools | Model |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Plan | 17.7s | $0.015 | 3 | 0 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Execute | 1m 22s | $0.163 | 29 | 28 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Verify | 2m 20s | $0.180 | 28 | 26 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Revise (round 1) | 1m 5s | $0.120 | 23 | 22 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
| Verify revision 1 | 1m 12s | $0.100 | 14 | 12 | claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 |
The call-by-call replay is not published for this run. Traces are large, so the repository keeps 9 of this run set’s 900 and leaves the rest out; the score, phases and final answer on this page come from the committed run record.
Runs you can replay
- A gate that blocked the right moveGated-execute · Haiku 4.5
- Three proposals beat one agentPropose-select · Haiku 4.5
- A verifier that earned its keepPlan-execute-verify · Sonnet 5.5
- A revision that did not helpPlan-execute-verify · Haiku 4.5
- The control, missing a stepSingle · Haiku 4.5
Record this cell yourself: npm run bench -- run --strategies plan-execute-verify --tasks research-password-hashing --models claude-haiku-4-5-20251001 --repeats 1
Score breakdown
- passStates that OWASP recommends Argon2id first, with a minimum configuration of 19 MiB of memory, an iteration count of 2 and 1 degree of parallelism.1.00weight 0.19
met, backed by verified evidence E1. “Use Argon2id with a minimum configuration of 19 MiB of memory, an iteration count of 2, and 1 degree of parallelism.”
- partialStates OWASP's alternatives as conditions: scrypt if Argon2id is not available, bcrypt only for legacy systems, and PBKDF2 (at least 600,000 iterations with HMAC-SHA-256) if FIPS-140 compliance is required.0.50weight 0.13
partial, backed by verified evidence E2. “If FIPS-140 compliance is required, use PBKDF2 with a work factor of 600,000 or more and set with an internal hash function of HMAC-SHA-256.”
- passStates that the current NIST SP 800-63B (revision 4) requires passwords to be salted and hashed with a suitable password hashing scheme that takes a cost factor, and says an approved scheme from the latest revision of SP 800-132 (or updated NIST guidelines) SHOULD be used.1.00weight 0.19
met, backed by verified evidence E4, E5. “Passwords SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme. Password hashing schemes take a password, a salt, and a cost factor as inputs and generate a password hash.”
- failStates that the superseded revision 3 named PBKDF2 and Balloon as example key derivation functions and said a memory-hard function SHOULD be used, and that revision 4 no longer contains that wording.0.00weight 0.13
Not stated.
- passExplains that for this team the two do not actually conflict: OWASP's own guidance is to use PBKDF2 (HMAC-SHA-256, at least 600,000 iterations) when FIPS-140 compliance is required, and NIST permits PBKDF2, so PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-256 satisfies both; Argon2id remains OWASP's choice only where FIPS does not apply.1.00weight 0.25
met, backed by verified evidence E2, E3. “For systems requiring FIPS-140 compliance, both sources effectively converge on PBKDF2: OWASP explicitly requires it for FIPS-140, and OWASP notes that PBKDF2 is "permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4."”
- partialStates at least one requirement both sources share, such as a unique salt for every password or a deliberately expensive hash with a tunable cost (work) factor instead of a fast general-purpose hash.0.50weight 0.13
partial, backed by verified evidence E4. “Passwords SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme.”
Penalties
No penalties were applied.
Scorer metadata
- corpus
- {"version":2,"snapshot":"2026-10-01","hash":"e12dc326c69a32d91f85f6355dc63e2a7d672b605685a1ffa1582a42bb1c561e","documents":5}
- opened documents
- ["owasp-password-storage","nist-sp800-63b-4","nist-sp800-63b-3","rfc9106"]
- opened by role
- {"primary":["owasp-password-storage","nist-sp800-63b-4"],"superseded":["nist-sp800-63b-3"],"secondary":["rfc9106"]}
- displayed share
- {"owasp-password-storage":1,"owasp-authentication":0.0743,"nist-sp800-63b-3":0.193,"nist-sp800-63b-4":0.2247,"rfc9106":0.2888}
- cited count
- 2
- verified count
- 2
- hallucinated count
- 0
- citation integrity
- 1
- hallucinated urls
- []
- evidence block
- true
- evidence block repaired
- false
- evidence count
- 6
- verified quote count
- 6
- verified quote rate
- 1
- evidence
- [{"url":"https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html","claim":"OWASP recommends Argon2id with minimum 19 MiB memory, iteration count 2, and 1 degree of parallelism as the primary password hashing algorithm.","quote":"Use Argon2id with a minimum configuration of 19 MiB of memory, an iteration count of 2, and 1 degree of parallelism.","verified":true,"document":"owasp-password-storage"},{"url":"https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html","claim":"OWASP recommends PBKDF2 with 600,000 iterations and HMAC-SHA-256 for FIPS-140 compliance.","quote":"If FIPS-140 compliance is required, use PBKDF2 with a work factor of 600,000 or more and set with an internal hash function of HMAC-SHA-256.","verified":true,"document":"owasp-password-storage"},{"url":"https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html","claim":"OWASP states that PBKDF2 is permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4 and should be the preferred algorithm when FIPS requirements apply.","quote":"Since PBKDF2 is permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4 and has FIPS-140 validated implementations, it should be the preferred algorithm when these are required.","verified":true,"document":"owasp-password-storage"},{"url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html","claim":"NIST SP 800-63B-4 requires passwords to be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme.","quote":"Passwords SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme.","verified":true,"document":"nist-sp800-63b-4"},{"url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html","claim":"NIST SP 800-63B-4 requires an approved password hashing scheme from SP800-132 or updated NIST guidelines.","quote":"An approved password hashing scheme published in the latest revision of [SP800-132] or updated NIST guidelines on password hashing schemes SHOULD be used.","verified":true,"document":"nist-sp800-63b-4"},{"url":"https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html","claim":"NIST SP 800-63B-4 defines approved cryptography as FIPS-approved or NIST-recommended techniques.","quote":"An encryption algorithm, hash function, random bit generator, or similar technique that is Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)-approved or NIST-recommended. Approved algorithms and techniques are either specified or adopted in a FIPS or NIST recommendation.","verified":true,"document":"nist-sp800-63b-4"}]
- judge unverified quotes
- 1
- judge verdicts
- [{"owasp-argon2id":{"status":"met","support":["E1"]},"owasp-conditions":{"status":"partial","support":["E2"]},"nist-current":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E5"]},"nist-revision":{"status":"missing","support":[]},"reconciliation":{"status":"met","support":["E2","E3"]},"common-ground":{"status":"met","support":["E4"]}},{"owasp-argon2id":{"status":"met","support":["E1"]},"owasp-conditions":{"status":"partial","support":["E2"]},"nist-current":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E5"]},"nist-revision":{"status":"missing","support":[]},"reconciliation":{"status":"partial","support":["E2","E3"]},"common-ground":{"status":"partial","support":["E4"]}},{"owasp-argon2id":{"status":"met","support":["E1"]},"owasp-conditions":{"status":"partial","support":["E2"]},"nist-current":{"status":"met","support":["E4","E5"]},"nist-revision":{"status":"missing","support":[]},"reconciliation":{"status":"met","support":["E2","E3"]},"common-ground":{"status":"partial","support":["E4"]}}]
- judge failures
- 0
- grounded weight share
- 0.875 (88%)
Final answer
Based on my research, I need to correct my previous answer because it made claims not supported by the sources. Let me provide an accurate answer based only on what these sources actually state.
Corrected Answer
When a team must satisfy both OWASP password storage guidance and NIST SP 800-63B-4 requirements while maintaining US federal FIPS compliance, the two sources address the requirement differently.
OWASP Password Storage Guidance
OWASP recommends a clear hierarchy. For systems without FIPS requirements, the primary recommendation is Argon2id: "Use Argon2id with a minimum configuration of 19 MiB of memory, an iteration count of 2, and 1 degree of parallelism." For FIPS-140 compliance specifically, OWASP states: "If FIPS-140 compliance is required, use PBKDF2 with a work factor of 600,000 or more and set with an internal hash function of HMAC-SHA-256."
Later in the OWASP guidance, when discussing PBKDF2, it states: "Since PBKDF2 is permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4 and has FIPS-140 validated implementations, it should be the preferred algorithm when these are required."
NIST SP 800-63B-4 Requirements
NIST SP 800-63B-4 requires password hashing but does not mandate specific algorithms by name. The standard states: "Passwords SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme. Password hashing schemes take a password, a salt, and a cost factor as inputs and generate a password hash." It further specifies: "An approved password hashing scheme published in the latest revision of [SP800-132] or updated NIST guidelines on password hashing schemes SHOULD be used."
NIST SP 800-63B-4 defines "approved cryptography" as: "An encryption algorithm, hash function, random bit generator, or similar technique that is Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)-approved or NIST-recommended. Approved algorithms and techniques are either specified or adopted in a FIPS or NIST recommendation."
Reconciliation
The reconciliation depends on interpreting what constitutes "approved" algorithms under NIST SP 800-63B-4. NIST's definition includes both FIPS-approved and NIST-recommended algorithms. However, NIST SP 800-63B-4 itself does not name specific password hashing algorithms, instead referring to SP800-132 (which specifies PBKDF2) and "updated NIST guidelines."
For systems requiring FIPS-140 compliance, both sources effectively converge on PBKDF2: OWASP explicitly requires it for FIPS-140, and OWASP notes that PBKDF2 is "permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4." PBKDF2 with HMAC-SHA-256 at 600,000 iterations (per OWASP) satisfies the requirement for an "approved" algorithm under NIST's definition, as it is FIPS-approved.
For systems without FIPS requirements, OWASP's recommendation of Argon2id differs from what NIST SP 800-63B-4 explicitly names, since NIST SP 800-63B-4 does not mention Argon2 by name. The reconciliation requires understanding that NIST defers to "updated NIST guidelines on password hashing schemes" beyond what is explicitly stated in the document.
{"evidence": [{"claim": "OWASP recommends Argon2id with minimum 19 MiB memory, iteration count 2, and 1 degree of parallelism as the primary password hashing algorithm.", "quote": "Use Argon2id with a minimum configuration of 19 MiB of memory, an iteration count of 2, and 1 degree of parallelism.", "url": "https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html"}, {"claim": "OWASP recommends PBKDF2 with 600,000 iterations and HMAC-SHA-256 for FIPS-140 compliance.", "quote": "If FIPS-140 compliance is required, use PBKDF2 with a work factor of 600,000 or more and set with an internal hash function of HMAC-SHA-256.", "url": "https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html"}, {"claim": "OWASP states that PBKDF2 is permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4 and should be the preferred algorithm when FIPS requirements apply.", "quote": "Since PBKDF2 is permitted by NIST SP 800-63B-4 and has FIPS-140 validated implementations, it should be the preferred algorithm when these are required.", "url": "https://cheatsheetseries.owasp.org/cheatsheets/Password_Storage_Cheat_Sheet.html"}, {"claim": "NIST SP 800-63B-4 requires passwords to be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme.", "quote": "Passwords SHALL be salted and hashed using a suitable password hashing scheme.", "url": "https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"}, {"claim": "NIST SP 800-63B-4 requires an approved password hashing scheme from SP800-132 or updated NIST guidelines.", "quote": "An approved password hashing scheme published in the latest revision of [SP800-132] or updated NIST guidelines on password hashing schemes SHOULD be used.", "url": "https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"}, {"claim": "NIST SP 800-63B-4 defines approved cryptography as FIPS-approved or NIST-recommended techniques.", "quote": "An encryption algorithm, hash function, random bit generator, or similar technique that is Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS)-approved or NIST-recommended. Approved algorithms and techniques are either specified or adopted in a FIPS or NIST recommendation.", "url": "https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-4/sp800-63b.html"}]}Provenance of the numbers on this page
- run set
- scaffold-or-scale-v1
- models
- Haiku 4.5, Sonnet 5.5, Opus 5.5
- effort
- high
- repeats
- 2
- fixtures
- replay
- runs
- 900 / 900
- strategy cost
- $354.44
- judge cost
- $9.19
- wall clock
- 9h 48m
- git
- fce5807b2d
Cost excludes judge calls, which are tracked separately so a scoring model never flatters or penalises an architecture. Every figure on this site is read from results/ at build time.