phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Proposed timeline changes

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: Sun, 5 Jan 2014 10:52:24 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: Daniel Franke <dfoxfranke@...il.com>
CC: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Proposed timeline changes

another way to go is to reduce the submission requirements. as of now,
a reference implementation and a large set of test vectors, as well as
discussion on performance, optimization possibilities, etc are
required.

this might be problematic for a number of reasons. for example catena
is an abstract proposal, which is best discussed from theoretic
viewpoint. choosing the appropriate inner hash function is not
crucial, therefore could be skipped for now.

the development time for any reference implementation that is actually
functional is a hassle. it has to be thoroughly tested and probably
reviewed by 3rd party, because a reference implementation with a bug
in it is not very useful.

so if time pressure is an issue, and it is, i recommend dropping or
easing this requirement.

Daniel Franke (at Sunday, January 5, 2014, 1:10:10 AM):
> Recent discussions on this list are making me question whether the
> currently planned PHC timeline still makes sense. Some observations:
>  1. It looks like the number of entries is going to be fairly small: probably fewer than ten.
>  2. All the designers of the most-discussed hashes (escrypt,
> EARWORM, Catena, NOELKDF) seem to be under time pressure to get
> their submissions completed.