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: <CAGiyFdfDxJkoezU3sVN9zh8eM3P+gBfFzgcSe5tQ--DaBNRvhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 21:56:52 +0100
From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Solar Designer (at Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 9:27:16 PM):
>
>> Here's mine: discuss everything on the public list.
>
>
> isn't it what i'm asking for for many days, but to no avail?
>

We want panel members to feel free to give their opinions about
submissions relative merits and defects. Private, close discussions
are more appropriate for this than public discussions. One of the
reasons is that there'll always be individuals who will feel
personally offended by criticism of rejection of their proposal, and
as initiator of the project, I didn't wanted to expose panel members
to resentment of submitters.

I can understand the frustration of those whose submission was
rejected, especially if it required a significant amount of work/time.
When I learnt that Keccak was selected as SHA-3 rather than my
submission BLAKE, for a moment I hated NIST and felt that it was
unfair. Even when NIST gave their rationale I wasn't convinced and
wished I had the full recordings of NIST's deliberations, but that was
just for a moment.