phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] escrypt 0.3.1

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: <CALCETrXv5Vf3_Npm0X=mzPjoeQJ44HPr4wojNUVRY91AZLTXEw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2014 16:51:16 -0800
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: discussions <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] escrypt 0.3.1

On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:
>
>         Issues and future work.
>
> I am not happy about the complexity.  Clearly, when supporting classic
> scrypt and more, complexity is higher than scrypt's.  Is this worth
> keeping, or should we drop support for computing classic scrypt hashes
> in order to let us simplify things somewhat?
>

I'm not convinced that this is very useful.  I don't think that there
are all that many scrypt users out there, any most would probably be
happy just using an scrypt library and a PHC-winner library.
Litecoin, for example, will never upgrade :)

There's another benefit to dropping compatibility: it will discourage
people from using scrypt-compatible mode in new applications.