phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] A review per day

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: <CA+hr98EZ9F=jjTXX7bxo+Sy9S-PAKFxSbFSKnTdrXQK5wWa8pQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:27:19 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] A review per day - Schvrch

On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 3:20 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...hershed.org> wrote:
> I am doing a *lot* of attacking PHC
> candidates right now, I personally would appreciate input checking, so
> I don't waste time showing that an entry is weak against invalid
> inputs.

that is why i have asserts. they mainly serve documentation purposes.
however, it was not a requirement to provide self documenting
implementation. the submitted documentation should serve as a
reference. of course, self documenting code is nice to have.