phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Terminology goals

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: <20130907142547.GB9093@openwall.com>
Date: Sat, 7 Sep 2013 18:25:48 +0400
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Terminology goals

On Fri, Sep 06, 2013 at 10:42:40PM -0700, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> What about calling them slow hashes?

FWIW, this is what we've been calling them in John the Ripper
development and usage context for a few years now, because we needed to
differentiate "fast" and "slow" hashes (of the hash types that JtR
supports) when talking about program structure, optimizations, usage
instructions (need to bother avoiding occasional duplicate candidate
passwords or not, etc).

A "slow" hash might not include a builtin salting mechanism (although in
practice they almost always do), whereas for PHC this is a requirement.
Yet I am fine with the "slow hashes" term.

That said, in PHC context, we've already started using "PHS", so perhaps
we should stick with that.

Alexander