Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:31:15 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: Inconsistent dragonfly 3/4 format names intended? On 2012-06-21 23:02, Frank Dittrich wrote: > I noticed a minor inconsistency in the naming of dragonfly formats: > > $ grep -n "#define FORMAT_NAME" dragonfly?_fmt.c|cut -b 1-20,46- > dragonfly3_fmt.c:32:"DragonFly BSD $3$ SHA-256 w/ bug, 32-bit" > dragonfly3_fmt.c:33:"DragonFly BSD $3$ SHA-256 w/ bug, 64-bit" > dragonfly4_fmt.c:32:"DragonFly BSD $4$ SHA-512 w/ bugs, 32-bit" > dragonfly4_fmt.c:33:"DragonFly BSD $4$ SHA-512 w/ bugs, 64-bit" > > Unless it is intentional to use "w/ bugs" for dragonfly4 and "w/ bug" > for dragonfly3, this should be unified, unless the dragonfly3 algorithm > really has just one bug, and dragonfly4 algorithm more than one. I am (really!) impressed with your observance but it's actually correct as-is. The $3$ format has one bug I know of and take care of, and the $4$ format has two. magnum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.