phc-discussions - NIST standardization

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20150504211546.GA23303@openwall.com>
Date: Tue, 5 May 2015 00:15:46 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: Meltem Sonmez Turan <meltemsturan@...il.com>
Cc: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: NIST standardization

Hi Meltem,

I asked you these questions on the panel list, and as I mentioned I'd
like to re-ask them on the public discussions list now:

Is NIST any more likely to standardize an eventual PHC winner that is
based on a NIST-standardized primitive such as SHA-2 than on e.g. BLAKE2?

Similarly, is NIST any more likely to standardize an eventual PHC winner
that is based on an established primitive such as BLAKE2 than on custom
crypto such as what we see in POMELO?

Finally, is it a valid argument for NIST that with proper entropy
bypasses from {password, salt} to PHS() output via an established crypto
primitive, the bulk of the processing may be considered non-crypto and
thus any custom non-crypto like this (e.g., yescrypt's pwxform) isn't a
barrier to standardization?

Thanks,

Alexander