phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] 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-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 22:01:31 -0700
From: Bill Cox <waywardgeek@...il.com>
To: "discussions@...sword-hashing.net" <discussions@...sword-hashing.net>
Cc: Meltem Sonmez Turan <meltemsturan@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PHC] NIST standardization

Er.. NIST?  Do we really want them involved?

Bill

On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com> wrote:

> 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
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped