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: <CAGiyFde4763Ngib29XpPmSMmJv69+S90+oVMtH-Ph_nerC29SA@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 13:08:37 +0200 From: Jean-Philippe Aumasson <jeanphilippe.aumasson@...il.com> To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net Subject: Re: [PHC] Competition process Earlier in January the panel agreed that Argon2 was too major a change to be accepted as a "tweak". Actually the designers presented Argon2 as a separate algorithm rather than just a tweak of Argon1. It was deemed that Lyra2's tweak was acceptable, OTOH. I'm not saying that it's "fair" or that it's the best way to go, whatever the criteria; I'm just reporting facts. Personally I like Argon2 a lot, in part for its relative simplicity, and wouldn't object to considering it as eligible if a critical mass of panel members also approves. (Then I expect some other submitters to complain that it isn't "fair".) Let's see what other panel members have to say. On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@...auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > Dmitry Khovratovich <khovratovich@...il.com> writes: > >>2) The submissions evolve over the competition period significantly, >>absorbing new ideas and constructions from the discussion, possibly even >>merging with each other. The confidence in the winner(s) comes from the >>consensus in the committee on certain features that are gradually integrated >>in the final version. > > That's the approach I prefer (see my earlier thoughts about allowing a final > round of updates for the top three, before a single best-of-breed is chosen). > Argon2 is such an obvious improvement, it seems odd to keep it out so that the > decision has to be made on a previous-generation version. Or, more > worryingly, that the decision on Argon might be made on the assumption that > what'll be adopted is actually Argon2, blurring the line over what's being > decided on. > > (Apologies to Jean-Philippe, who started off with a competition and is now > running a soccer match :-). > > Peter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists