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: <CAHOTMVLxsLzqOX9XwU-vprPQa+cTPQUV25HgJbdvgbOf9GwPYg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 00:29:25 -0800
From: Tony Arcieri <bascule@...il.com>
To: Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com>
Cc: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC status report

You didn't answer my question.

On Monday, February 16, 2015, Krisztián Pintér <pinterkr@...il.com> wrote:

>
> Tony Arcieri (at Monday, February 16, 2015, 6:59:00 AM):
> > 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?
>
> i have already answered that question, after ignoring like 3 similar
> accusations. let me find that for you. here it is:
>
> "this is not the first time a panel member pulls this cheap trick to
> call us sore losers to discredit criticism. guess what, even if i'm a
> sore loser, the criticism must still be answered in a meaningful
> manner, to avoid, you know, the impression that it might be true."
>
>

-- 
Tony Arcieri

Content of type "text/html" skipped