[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83b8311952a0500474e7038634d82e81@smtp.hushmail.com>
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.
