phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] submitters on discussions list

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: <0D1D9157-1EA4-40AA-AEAC-0DB443D42596@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 09:49:40 +0200
From: Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
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.

Dmitry

> On Apr 3, 2014, at 9:00, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> 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