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  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: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:49:40 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] submitters on discussions list

When discussing SHA-3 candidates, we simply sent our observations to the NIST mailing list. It is sufficient that the Committee is reading this list.

If you have a serious attack, it is recommended to contact the designers first to ensure you got it right.


> On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:00, Solar Designer <> wrote:
> JP, all -
> Can/should we require/ensure that all PHC submitters are subscribed to
> the discussions list?  I'd like to be providing feedback on submissions
> by simply posting in here, but for some of the submissions I am not sure
> if their authors are in here.
> Not being in here to comment would put their submissions at a
> disadvantage anyway, so maybe we should just discuss in here and assume
> that if the authors haven't subscribed, the scheme will probably not
> make it into the shortlist of finalists? ;-)  This feels harsh, though,
> and it could result in otherwise good schemes being thrown out on a
> misunderstanding.  On the other hand, requiring people to be on a
> discussion mailing list is not great (we didn't list it among
> requirements for PHC submitters), whereas using private e-mail or CC'ing
> them is not perfect either.
> Thoughts?  Maybe I am imagining this issue, and you can simply check and
> tell us that all of the submitters are already subscribed?
> Alexander

Powered by blists - more mailing lists