phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Competition process

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: <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.