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: <CAELGc4UivfWmi7UdVXzChKCtwN7Hk7rDuPun3R7nyyt9cmyAOw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 15:49:34 +0800
From: Hongjun Wu <wuhongjun@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Competition process

 >> With just 9 finalists, one way to handle this is to ask authors of the
remaining 8 whether they have objections.  I don't, so this leaves 7 to
ask."

>>... and we've just seen Catena's approval as well, so only 6 left, if we
choose to use this approach.

According to the email from Dimitry, it is ok to me, so no objection.

(I do not have time to compare the different versions of the candidates, so
I only consider the information in the email of Dimitry.)

Best regards,
Hongjun

On Tuesday, April 14, 2015, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 01:08:37PM +0200, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I approve.
>
> > (Then I expect some other submitters to complain that it isn't "fair".)
>
> Yes.  Quoting my reply to you on the panel list on February 3:
>
> "> I'd expect complaints from other finalists.
>
> This is unfair to them in that they had expected their more-than-tweaks
> would not be accepted, so did not even try to submit such.  It would
> have been preferable for us to state that we'd be willing to accept
> "major changes" rather than merely "tweaks" when we announced the
> finalists in December, if we're in fact to accept Argon2.  Then it'd be
> fair to other finalists.
>
> However, given the actual finalists we have, I would be surprised if
> they actually wanted to make major changes.  OTOH, I was surprised by
> Argon2 being introduced.  So I could be wrong.
>
> With just 9 finalists, one way to handle this is to ask authors of the
> remaining 8 whether they have objections.  I don't, so this leaves 7 to
> ask."
>
> ... and we've just seen Catena's approval as well, so only 6 left, if we
> choose to use this approach.
>
> > Let's see what other panel members have to say.
>
> Yes, and other submitters too.
>
> Alexander
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped