Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 22:25:29 +0200
From: magnum <>
Subject: New algorithm names (was: format renames)

On 6 May, 2013, at 23:44 , magnum <> wrote:
> Perhaps we should revise some (many?) labels in bleeding (like wpapsk -> WPSPSK) first though. And re-define shared things like MD5_SSE_TYPE from just SSE_type to '"MD5 " SSE_type'. I understand MD5crypt should be like this:
> Benchmarking: md5crypt [MD5 128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... DONE
> We should stop and think now before running around in circles: When at it, I think we should abbreviate all uses of "intrinsics" in ALGORITHM_NAME because it's too long. Do we even need an abbreviation? I think not. This is enough:
> Benchmarking: md5crypt [MD5 128/128 SSE2 12x]... DONE
> Also, should we standardize on some abbreviation of things like PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-256 too? Perhaps drop "HMAC" (even if it's not stricly implied by PBKDF2) and just say PBKDF2-SHA256.
> BTW, doesn't "128/128" and "4x" actually say the same thing twice? So we should drop "4x". For formats where we currently say "128/128 12x" it might be more logical with "3x128/128". Perhaps even drop the 3x and just say "128/128" even if interleaved. Just thinking out loud.
> The current
> Benchmarking: md5crypt [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 12x]... DONE
> Benchmarking: lastpass, LastPass sniffed sessions PBKDF2-HMAC-SHA-256 AES [128/128 SSE2 intrinsics 4x]... DONE
> could be
> Benchmarking: md5crypt [MD5 3x128/128 SSE2]... DONE
> Benchmarking: LastPass, sniffed sessions [PBKDF2-SHA256 128/128 SSE2 AES]... DONE

Anyone having an opinion on this? I'm not quite sure how to proceed but I'd like them to be shorter.


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.