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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <BY2PR03MB5548A701BAE3D996A7C3910A7F20@BY2PR03MB554.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 20:15:48 +0000 From: Marsh Ray <maray@...rosoft.com> To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net> Subject: RE: [PHC] OMG we have benchmarks -----Original Message----- From: Solar Designer [mailto:solar@...nwall.com] > > In actual usage, those extra parameters may in fact be tuned to match specific use cases better. Rijndael with a block size of 256 bits would fit many applications better than AES, too. But the world has generally agreed with NIST that having fewer choices makes a better standard than being perfectly flexible to fit all situations. I feel tuning the PHC parameters for your hardware should be more like, say, buying a shirt and pants off the rack than getting a custom-tailored suit with half a dozen measurements. - Marsh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists