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: <CAAS2fgTcbaeUQvfFkcgKx-+nA+ACqBrvvtpXsN_uBKFKYhv60Q@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:01:54 +0000 From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@...il.com> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] Competition process On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 8:24 AM, Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com> wrote: > The second approach (allowing learning from each other and major tweaks) > might be beneficial due to a relatively small size of the community behind PHC > and due to state of the art being immature yet (the competition process clearly I think we've certainly learned that this space was less well understood than I would have guessed prior to the contest. I've personally felt that there is no win here... that there are elements of each candidate that I consider superior which are not incompatible and only do not exist in a single proposal due to how the history panned out. Some might think that this fact is a reason to select many winners; but I think many winners is pessimal for the marketplace. There is so much that any of the candidates can be improved through really excellent implementation which is diluted by multiple options, there is compatibility lost, etc.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists