phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Quick gripe... in case there's ever another contest

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: <CAOLP8p4HLzP=wrTfJXsoSMqQ4kujntrM5nFbge4B22JGMiLtPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 20:50:54 -0400
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Quick gripe... in case there's ever another contest

On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Evgeny Kapun <abacabadabacaba@...il.com> wrote:
> 06.04.2014 02:47, Solar Designer wrote:
> It is important that cryptographic functions are defined to operate on
> bytes, not characters. Otherwise, the definition of such functions would
> depend on the definition of what a character is, and how they are
> represented, which could be as much as the entire Unicode standard.

I strongly agree.  Why on earth did the SCRAM guys feel they had to
include the Unicode definition in their salted challenge-response
password protocol?  I can hardly wait for Tabby PAKE, or something
similar, to lead the way forward.

Bill