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  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]
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2015 17:33:52 -0700
From: Bill Cox <>
To: "" <>
Subject: Re: [PHC] Competition process

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Christian Forler <> wrote:

> On 14.04.2015, 10:24 Dmitry Khovratovich 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
> >  gave it a large boost), but then it needs to be applied to all the
> candidates.
> > In particular, given the state of other finalists, we believe that it
> > would be fair to keep Argon2i and Argon2d in the competition.
> I totally agree with Dimitry on this topic. The PHC committee should (at
> least reconsider to) keep Argon2i and Argon2d in the competition. From
> my understanding, the idea behind this competition is to improve our
> knowledge and password hashing schemes as much as possible.
> Best regards,
> Christian
> Seconded.  I appreciate the panel's rational for not allowing Argon2.
However, it is a strong competitor.  It's not like we'll have a chance next
year to pick new winners.  Argon2d gives good competition to the main
memory-hard hashing area, and Argon2i is the only other potential
cache-timing resistant algorithm left in the competition other than Catena.


Content of type "text/html" skipped

Powered by blists - more mailing lists