phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Tweaks will no longer be accepted

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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 04:54:47 -0800
From: epixoip <epixoip@...dshell.nl>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Tweaks will no longer be accepted

We don't really have a "round 1" or "round 2." But if you wish to view
"selection of finalists" as round 1, and "selection of winners" as round
2, then we are still in round 1. We've not yet started round 2.

There was indeed a 7-week period where finalists were permitted to make
minor last-minute tweaks to their submissions before proceeding to
"round 2." Many of the tweaks that were submitted were driven by
feedback received from this discussion list, while others were tweaks
that the authors simply felt needed to be made. The PHC Status Report
that the panel is currently finalizing does not provide any feedback on
areas where finalists may improve; it simply provides the panel's
rationale for why some algorithms advanced, and others didn't. It
possibly provides feedback on areas where non-finalists could improve,
but this would be irrelevant as non-finalists are not advancing to
"round 2."

I understand the frustration that some non-finalist authors are
experiencing due to us not yet publishing the PHC Status Report. They
are naturally anxious to know why their candidates did not advance. And
I fully agree that the report should have been published by now, and
ideally should have been published at the time the finalists were
announced. Unfortunately things did not work out that way, as we've
experienced many delays and setbacks. The only consolation I can offer
is that the report is indeed almost finished and will be published
within the next two weeks, well in advance of us starting "round 2."

Regardless, the publication of the PHC Status Report has no bearing on
the "tweaking phase," nor will it have any bearing on the outcome of
"round 2." It simply serves as a way to formally close out "round 1."

On 2/2/2015 3:57 AM, Ben Harris wrote:
>
> Sorry for the silly question. But why have round 1 and round 2 if
> there is no feedback and opportunity to improve between rounds??
>
> On 02/02/2015 5:52 pm, "Jean-Philippe Aumasson"
> <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com
> <mailto:jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>> wrote:
>
>     The first round report is being finalized and will be published
>     within 2 weeks.
>
>
>     On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 10:03 AM, Krisztián Pintér
>     <pinterkr@...il.com <mailto:pinterkr@...il.com>> wrote:
>     > we were told there would be a selection rationale for the first
>     round.
>     > what about that? i found it peculiar that the second round
>     tweaks are
>     > expected without the first round being properly closed.
>