[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1502121109250.14964@debian>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:22:26 +0100 (CET)
From: Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report
On Wed, 11 Feb 2015, Tony Arcieri wrote:
> I'm sure NIST tried quite hard with the SHA-3 competition, but the
> reality (at least IMNSHO) is the entire process was a debacle that
> resulted in a highly contested, poorly-received candidate which was
> selected before the PHC started... *and yet* still has not been fully
> standardized by NIST.
I think, this is unfair! When the SHA-3 process started, there was panic
in the community, especially on the side of the industry. People expected
SHA-2 to fall as badly as SHA-0 and SHA-1, and where urgently waiting for
something to replace all the old hash functions. During the time of the
SHA-3 competition, the confidence in SHA-2 grew, and now there is no real
interest in SHA-3 any more.
Also not that for many years, the cryptographic community had deep trust
in the NIST as a fair broker for cryptographic competitions and standards.
With recent disappointments (if you don't know what i mean, google for
"Dual_EC_DRBG"), the NIST lost much of its good reputation. Which doesn't
improve the perception of new NIST standards (SHA-3 or whatever),
regardless of the quality of the process for these standards.
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--
Powered by blists - more mailing lists