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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 23:14:04 +0200
From: Somitra Sanadhya <somitra@...td.ac.in>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

Dear all,

I think the discussion is not leading to a meaningful and factual
direction. Let me humbly try to steer the discussion towards concrete
measures and stop this blame game. There are some TO-DO items in the
comments, which can help  restore the credibility of the competition (at
least among some of us who are not happy about it).

1. The panel should make the voting and discussion on the selection
criteria public.

I refer to the AES competition archived selection criteria here:
http://csrc.nist.gov/archive/aes/pre-round1/aes_9709.htm Note the language
from section 4: "In order to provide a basis for the analysis and
evaluation of encryption algorithms submitted to be considered for
incorporation into the FIPS for AES, evaluation criteria will be used to
review candidate algorithms.  All of NIST’s analysis results will be made
publicly available."

It is in the spirit of an open competition to keep the process transparent.
All discussion leading to the selection should have been public already.

2. I had pointed this earlier that the comment on our design Rig is as
follows: "Similar to Catena, but received less attention (cf. bugs found in
the specification and code)".

There are two parts to this comment. (a) Similar to Catena. (b) bugs found.

I would have liked the panel to clarify each of the two points with respect
to the revised submission Rig v2 which is the one the PHC website lists
since October 2014. Clearly, (b) is false for this. Further, is (a)
measurable by any means ?  Aren't there novel ideas in the design of Rig,
apart from ideas from Catena ? Given the publicly available eprint report
which I referred to in my previous mail, is it fair to dismiss the design
in this single sentence ? If Rig v2 was not being considered, shouldn't the
designers have been informed at the time of the revised submission itself
that this version will not be evaluated any more ? (Related: weren't other
design also allowed to be modified around the same time ? The changes were
not overhauling the design, these were minor modification to handle the
issues which Bill Cox found. I don't think there was any comment on the
design after that. If the panel was not looking at the revised submission
then we could have as well saved our time to do other things, rather than
investing our time in something which no one was interested in looking at.)

3. It is not just our design. Most designs have one line comments on them
in the document shared earlier. To say that the panel could not prepare a
detailed document is mocking the competition. As pointed by Krisztian
earlier, many of these one liners are actually not factual but based on
opinions. The report should have had meaningful comparison of the
candidates, not just one liners on the entries. Dismissing entries by such
one liners is devaluing the effort put by so many designers in the
competition.

If you want some specific metrics, then here is a randomly thought list
which is not exhaustive: performance on various platforms, cryptographic
strength, memory hardness, .... (add whatever else you like, make a
baseline and compare all entries on some rational basis).

In my humble opinion, the bitterness which we are witnessing in the mailing
list is due to the secretive selection and the improper rationale for
selection in the document. If these were public and based on detailed
discussions, I don't think anyone would have complained. IMHO, the panel
members should have already realized that there is a lot to blame
themselves rather than the people questioning their decision now. To blame
the questions on the "frustration of non-finalists" is not showing the
maturity expected from a panel, which contains many good people whom many
of us trusted (if that was not the case then you wouldn't have received so
many submissions in the first place). Honestly, please discuss with some
researchers in universities around you about the way the selection has
happened so far, showing them the "selection rationale document" and "the
process followed" (the secret voting, and not even following that voting
perfectly;  claiming that this was in addition to the private discussion
etc). I am quite certain that none of them will favor the process as
followed. All of it was easily avoided by keeping the process in public
domain and having a well thought out selection document.

To quote Bruce Schneier on the AES competition (a losing finalist for the
competition): "I have nothing but good things to say about NIST and the AES
process".

We were expecting a competition in the spirit of AES, but unfortunately
things haven't gone that way.

4. I deviate slightly to the "flexibility" and "simplicity" ideas of the
AES competition. The AES competition had a criteria termed "simplicity",
but it already created lots of discussion/confusion that time. To quote a
few lines from the TwoFish team (
https://www.schneier.com/paper-twofish-final.pdf) " "Simplicity” is the
NIST criterion that’s hardest to describe. Lines of pseudocode, number of
mathematical equations, density of lines in a block diagram: these are all
potential measures of simplicity. Our worry about simplicity as a measure
is that the simplest algorithms are often the easiest to break. ...".

 If things are hazy then people will question them.

Regards.
Somitra

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists