[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BLU0-SMTP375F8B6490F25CAB85BA528FDFD0@phx.gbl>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 23:02:35 +0200
From: Frank Dittrich <frank_dittrich@...mail.com>
To: john-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Inconsistent dragonfly 3/4 format names intended?
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.
Since I don't really know whether the difference is intended, or what
magnum prefers, I'll not attach such a trivial patch.
(But I would vote for the shorter name.)
Frank
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.
