phc-discussions - [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: <CAHOTMVJ=o3HcWRctqOXq7JJh=S__ZGyru39xqkmMTXpYTSOfkQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 21:59:00 -0800
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: [PHC] PHC status report

I have a very candid question for Krisztián Pintér and Somitra Sanadhya:

Do you think there's a general process problem with the PHC, or do you
think specific candidates were descriminated against?

My personal opinion is I feel like you're alleging the former, when really
what you're trying to argue is the latter.

Can you please clarify the specificity of your complaints?

On Monday, February 9, 2015, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','pinterkr@...il.com');>> wrote:

> this is the actual information you based your decision on? i'm pretty
> sure one of you put this document together in one afternoon. i see no
> reason why would anyone hope to learn anything here after this. i can
> only hope the crypto community knows better than trusting a false
> sense of authority provided by an acronym (PHC), and chooses to ignore
> this non-information. if not, you are welcome to choose your own
> candidates as winners, and celebrate.
>
> On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:41 PM, Jean-Philippe Aumasson
> <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com> wrote:
> > With our apologies for the delay:
> https://password-hashing.net/report1.html
>

-- 
Tony Arcieri

Content of type "text/html" skipped