phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Design Rationale and Security Analysis of PHC candidates

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+hr98EvYPPchuWpGSaozf42vFE3ry9DOF7r+E21ctm20ojqWA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 09:46:10 +0200
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Design Rationale and Security Analysis of PHC candidates

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Dmitry Khovratovich
<khovratovich@...il.com> wrote:
> https://www.cryptolux.org/images/4/4f/PHC-overview.pdf

one more question/observation: i don't understand the reason for
gambit's basic crypto being "claimed" as opposed to "explored", since
it inherits these properties from the underlying sponge, in the
proposed instance, keccak. what other exploration is needed?