phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] "Predictable" vs "pseudorandom" KDFs

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: <CAOLP8p6MjYJLscf__-CKdzZaTLG9p76jJhQ7XWsDip6=3epPxw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2014 19:51:27 -0500
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] "Predictable" vs "pseudorandom" KDFs

On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Samuel Neves <sneves@....uc.pt> wrote:
> On 27-02-2014 20:11, Solar Designer wrote:
>> How about "cache timing safe" and "cache timing unsafe"?
>
> That is probably the clearest and least ambiguous option. I don't like
> "predictable" and "pseudorandom", those terms don't need more overloads.
> For the sake of bike-shedding, I propose "silent" and "noisy".

I had to look up bike shedding.  This is definitely a bike shedding opportunity.

I could get behind "silent" and "noisy".  That's better than my
original "pure" and "dirty".

How about "stealthy" and "noisy"?  Stealthy sounds cooler.  Definitely
a bike shed moment...

Bill