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]

Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 14:32:16 +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 2:11 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...hershed.org> wrote:

> I do believe that basic input checking should be part of the reference
> design.

two observations.

1. no, at this stage, we don't need input checking at all. this is not
a library, but a reference. that is, documentation of the algorithm.

2, even in a library, i suggest using only assert-s, if at all. such a
low level subprogram does not have any better means of communicating
an error condition that should not happen in the first place. it is
the responsibility of the caller to use correct parameters.