phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] gambit wiki strength

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

Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 18:36:44 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] gambit wiki strength

i wasn't aware that the wiki is open for editing. not that i want to
manage anyone's lives, but if i may have a suggestion:

i would not go awry with the editing. i think maintaining the
information there should be mostly the task of the panel and whoever
they ask. if someone edits, we need to conform to strict guidelines to
maintain unified style and phrasing.

here are some of my, uncalled for, woes, taken from catena page:

"Provably cache timing attack resistant"

i don't think that "provably" adds anything, it is obviously cache
timing resistant.

"Advanced framework features"

weasel phrase without actual meaning.

"which have strongly influenced other entries"

did it? which ones? anyway, it is not important.

"Advanced TMTO defense"

advanced is a weasel word

"KISS"

not sure i would use this term in this context, but also arguable and
imprecise.

just my 2c.