Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 22:25:29 +0200 From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com Subject: New algorithm names (was: format renames) On 6 May, 2013, at 23:44 , magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com> 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. 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.