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]

Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2013 21:24:08 -0700
From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@....org>
To: <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] C99 in reference implementations

Good catch.
 
I agree that one should also consider stdlib.h for limited purposes.
 
-   Dennis
 
From: Daniel Franke [mailto:dfoxfranke@...il.com] 
Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 16:59
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 <mailto: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