[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12e8e14b4aa3a33f2c3c633353ce1db8@smtp.hushmail.com>
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2013 09:50:29 +0200
From: magnum <john.magnum@...hmail.com>
To: john-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Using DYNAMIC for implementing SHA-512 ^ 101 ?
On 25 Jul, 2013, at 6:30 , Dhiru Kholia <dhiru.kholia@...il.com> wrote:
> On 07/23/13 at 10:47am, Frank Dittrich wrote:
>> For extra long hashes we should consider storing them base64 encoded,
>> even if the format supports hex encoded and base64 encoded hashes.
>
> You sound like magnum (a base64 *lover*) here but I get the point ;)
Lol, I don't prefer base64 over hex per se, but I really hate 32 kilobyte test vectors like we had in LUKS until a while ago (thanks!). They are not even likely to be accepted by some compilers.
BTW I think LINE_BUFFER_SIZE should be smaller than the current 0x30000, not larger than 0x10000 if possible. Some of our current tools will make inline hashes up to LINE_BUFFER_SIZE.
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.
