phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] PHC status report

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: <CAGiyFdf3a1eoBCMw1q1Xw1uj16z4w03Fv6TXeL4rA-o3cTO+Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:37:27 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

Hi Krisztián!

I'm sorry to hear about your frustrations, and I understand that the
succinctness of the report can be confusing.

That said, please be sure that the PHC panel members made their best
efforts to assess all the submissions fairly. Each panel member was
requested to list his/her favorite and least favorite submissions, and
from this vote a ranking was created, which served as a basis for
private discussions. To let members speak freely about submissions,
both positively and negatively, these discussions were not made
public. Votes were finalized early September, and the finalists were
announced in December. We wish we could have prepared a more extensive
report, such as that of NIST for the SHA-3 competition
(http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/nistir/ir7764/nistir-7764.pdf).
However, there has been many more points discussed than the ones
listed in the brief report we published, and I'm confident that the
selection was made on sound and fair bases.

The selection is arguably not perfect (can it be?), and I'd be happy
to hear constructive objections regarding the (non-)selection of one
or another candidate. This would help us in the future selection of
one or more winners.

Thanks for your understanding,

JP