[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB5542515C8E06A10C6D5D09DA71F0@BY2PR03MB554.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 18:24:12 +0000
From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: RE: [PHC] PHC output specifics
From: Krisztián Pintér [mailto:pinterkr@...il.com]
> i would recommend the algo specification be oblivious to the encoding, and treat the password as binary.
Agree the function interface itself should be "8-bit clean", i.e., allow all possible octet values.
However, most programmers using this API will have character string data. So at least some common recommended encoding is needed if we want there to be any chance at interoperability.
> i don't see the benefit of logarithmic parametrization.
'Cryptographic security' and 'entropy' are generally measured in bits and thus logarithmic measures.
CPU and memory size grow exponentially (Moore's Law)
Changes to memory bandwidth and latency over time do not seem to be logarithmic.
- Marsh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists