phc-discussions - RE: [PHC] PHC output specifics

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: <CY1PR0301MB06680E9BA1E5F188C3EB535DAC1F0@CY1PR0301MB0668.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 21:00:46 +0000
From: Greg Zaverucha <gregz@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] PHC output specifics

I support having a standardization phase. Better that we do it than some standards organization. I think following the selection of a winner, a spec is written (specifying the additional details Marsh listed) and the reference implementation is updated to match.   The spec can (and should, IMO) constrain how the winning algorithm is used, fixing certain parameters or otherwise reducing the number of options.   For comparison, the AES algorithm Rijndael supported different block sizes, but the final spec fixed this parameter to 16 bytes. 

I would like this to become a well-defined phase of the PHC -- and the timeline [1] updated to reflect this. Some people might go ahead and start using the algorithm before the spec is completed, then end up with something that doesn't interoperate, but I think this is worth the risk. 

Greg

[1] https://password-hashing.net/timeline.html 

-----Original Message-----
From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com] 
Sent: Thursday, March 5, 2015 2:37 AM
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] PHC output specifics

[snip] 

> If we don't define these things, other people will. Lots of other people, incompatibly, and hilarity will ensue.

Right.  We need a standardization phase.  And maybe we should combine it with winner selection.  And maybe we should make some tweaks to the finalists themselves (in coordination with the submitters, of course) as we standardize them as winners - e.g., Bill sort of suggested that we make Catena a lot faster.  We should discuss this (separately from this thread).

Alexander