phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2014 08:07:33 +0000
From: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@...auckland.ac.nz>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Re: Mechanical tests

Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@....freebsd.dk> writes:

>In message <877g73ofj5.fsf@...fjaw.dfranke.us>, Daniel Franke writes:
>
>>The definition of weakly-secure KDF, given in
>
>This is not a KDF-contest.
>
>This is a password-scrambler contest.

We know that, but they don't, no matter how big we write it on the web
site/final specification/media announcement.  If we don't set KDF-style
requirements then at some point someone is going to run the PHC-winner's
output through Dieharder and announce on Slashdot/a conference paper/front
page of the NY Times that the PHC chose a flawed algorithm, and no amount of
trying to explain the difference between a KDF and a PHC will overcome that.
So it had better act as a KDF, whether that was an original design goal or
not.

Peter.