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: <CAHOTMV+ORZTYTF+v_7Yhxx0Q6qmNankv9aP0LiAr0Mmj65miUQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:22:40 -0800
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

Hi everyone,

I am a PHC judge, but in this email I am speaking for myself.

It seems that the concern (FUD?) expressed in this thread is simply about
the inclusion of these two additional requirements:

1. Elegance of design
2. Originality and innovation

As far as I can tell, whether the finalists meet these criteria isn't even
in question, merely the criteria themselves, and the fact they weren't on
the original list.

My personal opinion is that these additional requirements are parsimonious
with the original requirements and do not represent a substantal deviation
from what was stated initially.

Perehaps I am party to the criminal conspiracy being alleged here (by an
ex-NIST member, nonetheless) but I really think the concerns and
accusations being leveled in this thread are completely overblown.

That said, I think making at least the vote public is a good idea. J-P has
my permission to publish my vote.

-- 
Tony Arcieri

Content of type "text/html" skipped