phc-discussions - RE: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations

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]

Message-ID: <CAJm83bDh160CYczT3SzQw-iQDG1ViDh9-aHHgbZAAEwJMAP-cA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 19:59:08 -0400
From: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: RE: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations

On Aug 10, 2013 7:18 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@....org>
wrote:

> My recommendation would be to use Clean C (C Language that is C++
compatible) and also limit the solution to the free-standing subset of C.
 That means the most standard headers to use are any of float.h, iso646.h,
limits.h, stdarg.h, stdbool.h, stddef.h, and stdint.h, so long Clean C is
also achieved.  (I suspect that rules out stdbool.h.)

Adherence to this discipline rules out all means of dynamic memory
allocation other than by user-supplied callbacks. Since the PHS() prototype
doesn't have any such callbacks in it, this would preclude implementation
of any hash algorithm with configurable memory-hardness.

Content of type "text/html" skipped