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]

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:29:32 +0100
From: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 11:09 AM,  <Stefan.Lucks@...-weimar.de> wrote:
> 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.

these are the kind of statements i actually demand. because these can
be considered, evaluated, debated, refuted, etc. the PHC panel so far
failed to publish any documents that could possibly spark any
meaningful debate or criticism. we don't have anything.

lately, we at least had some progress, but still a long way to go.