| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 15:08:12 +0300 From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] Competition process On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:08:37PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote: > Personally I like Argon2 a lot, in part for its relative simplicity, > and wouldn't object to considering it as eligible if a critical mass > of panel members also approves. I approve. > (Then I expect some other submitters to complain that it isn't "fair".) Yes. Quoting my reply to you on the panel list on February 3: "> I'd expect complaints from other finalists. This is unfair to them in that they had expected their more-than-tweaks would not be accepted, so did not even try to submit such. It would have been preferable for us to state that we'd be willing to accept "major changes" rather than merely "tweaks" when we announced the finalists in December, if we're in fact to accept Argon2. Then it'd be fair to other finalists. However, given the actual finalists we have, I would be surprised if they actually wanted to make major changes. OTOH, I was surprised by Argon2 being introduced. So I could be wrong. With just 9 finalists, one way to handle this is to ask authors of the remaining 8 whether they have objections. I don't, so this leaves 7 to ask." ... and we've just seen Catena's approval as well, so only 6 left, if we choose to use this approach. > Let's see what other panel members have to say. Yes, and other submitters too. Alexander
Powered by blists - more mailing lists