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  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 16:19:58 +0200
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] submitters on discussions list

Agree with Dmitry. Ideally submitters should be on the ML, and that's
their own responsibility to register and follow the PHC activity.

That said, I will check who's already registered, and it's probably
reasonable to email those not registered that it might be a good idea
to subscribe. (Will try to do this by end of week.)

On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Dmitry Khovratovich
<khovratovich@...il.com> wrote:
>
> 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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists