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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 12:39:52 +0300
From: Solar Designer <solar@...nwall.com>
To: discussions@...sword-hashing.net
Subject: Re: [PHC] Specification of a modular crypt format

On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 09:22:17AM +0000, Jean-Philippe Aumasson wrote:
> Do you think the specs/code at https://github.com/P-H-C/
> 1) cannot be finalized as they are and require major changes
> 2) could use some optimization but are acceptable as they are
> 3) are perfectly fine
> ?

I think the most important decisions involve tradeoffs, so there's no
clear right or wrong.  This applies to compact vs. verbose, and to
verbatim salt vs. encoded.  I think what's currently proposed is
reasonable (probably falls under answer 2), although more careful review
is needed and minor changes might then be needed.  I am currently
putting most of my PHC-related time (which is less than I would have
liked to have for PHC these two months) into finalizing yescrypt, which
is a reason why I am not more closely involved in finalizing the
encoding and Argon2 and other schemes.  Also, I am not a verbose
encoding guy, so when a decision was made to go verbose, it kind of
meant someone else had to play a more active role (Thomas already did,
and others contributed a little bit each).

I still haven't fully given up on a compact encoding for yescrypt, so I
might play with that as well.  I do see drawbacks of having more than
one encoding scheme for a hashing scheme, though.

Alexander