phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHC finalists announcement

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 22:14:03 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC finalists announcement

Thomas Pornin (at Wednesday, December 10, 2014, 2:54:19 AM):

> It is also a general convention of Science and other intellectual
> fields, since at least the days of Confucius, to require clear
> exposition from the proponent of any idea.

and if not present, point out the problem, and request re-submit.
there was plenty of time to ask for clarification.

i can't wait to see if this changed the outcome or not. if it did, it
creates a very uncomfortable situation.

> the heart of the
> problem is about implementation efficiency, in particular how the
> defender's hardware (presumably a general purpose CPU) will be optimal
> for implementation of attacks (economic optimality, see above).

this topic also came up a while ago. how do we know what kind of
hardware will we have in ten years? overoptimizing to one
architecture, against some other architectures can become obsolete
really fast.

> Thus, quality of the reference implementation is a legitimate criterion
> _among others_. And this is not a novelty; this has been the case for
> all cryptographic competitions,

can you cite me an example? i'm almost sure that for example estream
did not do that.