phc-discussions - Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

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: Sat, 26 Sep 2015 23:46:16 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 07:05:38PM +0000, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote:
> Re ordering: I also meant the fixed order that makes the most sense for the
> primitive, rather than lex order. The order should just be well-defined and
> unambiguous.

Agreed.  In fact, Thomas' own sample code for Argon2 places t before p.

It also has optional keyid and data parameters, contrary(?) to what the
proposed specification previously said.

> I'd also encourage a non-bloated syntax, since there's no benefit of having
> a better human-readable encoding. Also important is the consistency with
> the current standard.

I wouldn't go as far as to say "there's no benefit of having a better
human-readable encoding" - I think it's nice for the encoding to be
human-readable, but this also has drawbacks, including even "looking
bad" to some humans. ;-)

I think I'm going to give a compact syntax a try in yescrypt, and then
we'll see if we're going to reuse most of it for other PHC schemes.

I am still very interested in any comments you (JP, Thomas, others)
might have on my proposed compact encodings for the numeric parameters.

Alexander