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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:20:47 +0530
From: Donghoon Chang <pointchang@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

Dear Stefan,

Thank you so much for the reply.

I just explained in other two mails regarding how the 2nd round and final
round candidates of SHA-3 were selected in scientific ways based on facts
found in the SHA-3 zoo and eBASH, etc.

I hope that my explanation might be an answer to you.
Also, please let me know if there is any comment on that.

- Donghoon



2015-02-12 15:39 GMT+05:30 <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de>:

> On Thu, 12 Feb 2015, Donghoon Chang wrote:
>
>  Let me share the process of SHA-3 selection.
>>
> [...]
>
>>
>> Till 5 were chosen, NIST focused only on evaluating each algorithm based
>> on security, software and hardware performance based on clear comparison.
>> Till 5 were chosen, NIST never considered additional features such as
>> elegance and simplicity, etc. So, at least, we sure that the five
>> algorithms sound fine in terms of security and performance.
>>
>
> As I understand your complaint, you argue that the SHA-3 process, at least
> the down from 51 to 14, and the narrowing down from 14 to 5 candidates, has
> been based on objective and verifiable comparisons regarding security and
> performance? Or, as you put it in another mail, "the criteria of standards
> or algorithms related to the security of system should be able to be
> measured by scientific ways"?
>
> Having been on the submitters side in SHA-3, this is not what I see when I
> read the SHA-3 reports. Surely, there had been some candidates that where
> actually broken or performed poor everywhere. But most choices where based
> on subjective decisions, not on criteria measurable by scientific ways.
>
> Mind you, I am not accusing you, or the other authors of the report, or
> the NIST in general, of anything wrong. It would actually be completely
> irresponsible to ignore soft "facts" for the decision.
>
> Consider security, the hardest of all criteria. The SHA-3 round-1 report <
> http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/sha-3/Round1/
> documents/sha3_NISTIR7620.pdf> says:
>   "NIST considered not only attacks that directly demonstrated that a SHA-
>    3 candidate fell short of NIST’s stated security targets, but also
>    attacks that have historically been precursors to more severe attacks
>    on legacy hash algorithms."
>
> This APPEARS like a rational foundations for decisions, doesn't it?
>
> But it does mean nothing less than some seasoned cryptographer at NIST
> looks at a reported attacks and thinks "oh, this feels bad" or "nice work,
> but I don't think this will go much further". Anticipating the likelihood
> that a reported weakness gets worse cannot be based on hard scientific
> facts. Nevertheless, this is an important part of the decision process.
>
> And if there is no reported weaknesses at all? Then surely the candidate
> must be promoted to the next round, right? Actually, the lack of
> cryptanalysis may be a reason not to promote a candidate either, since it
> indicates either a lack of interest in the candidate from the cryptographic
> community, or it shows that the candidate is difficult to analyse.
>
> This is, what NIST did and what it had to do. And it is, was what we, the
> submitters, actually expected the NIST to do. When writing our submission,
> we expected the SHA-3 contest to be as much a "beauty contest" based on
> soft criteria, as a "demolition derby", based on hard facts -- not much
> different from the AES process.
>
> Please read the SHA-3 first-round report I quoted above. How many specific
> reasons for not selecting a candidate does it give?
>
> Perhaps, the PHC report has been too verbose giving specific reasons for
> not promoting specific candidates?
>
> So long
>
> Stefan
>
> ------  I  love  the  taste  of  Cryptanalysis  in  the morning!  ------
> uni-weimar.de/de/medien/professuren/mediensicherheit/people/stefan-lucks
> --Stefan.Lucks (at) uni-weimar.de, Bauhaus-Universität Weimar, Germany--

Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists