[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?

To: Ron Garret <ron@flownet.com>
Subject: Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
From: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 17:34:00 -0800
Cc: Laurens Van Houtven <_@lvh.cc>, scrypt@tarsnap.com
In-reply-to: <8D59C062-A34A-4FF9-9B76-5034B1918779@flownet.com>
References: <CAE_Hg6Zcj_XxkTTwdnXf_pufXymn_td33vkEXoA+iAssjpOMEg@mail.gmail.com> <5286A858.3060906@tarsnap.com> <8D59C062-A34A-4FF9-9B76-5034B1918779@flownet.com>

On 11/15/13 16:09, Ron Garret wrote:
> Since we’re on this topic, I have a question/suggestion:
> 
>> The parameter N must be a power of 2 greater than 1.
> 
> It seems to me that it would be better to specify that the input parameter n should simply be a positive integer and have the computation of N=2^n be part of the scrypt algorithm.  Is there a reason you didn’t do it that way?

The scrypt algorithm is specified as operating on arbitrary N; it's just
this particular implementation which is limited in the values it can
handle.

I wanted the parameters of the function to match the definition of the
algorithm it implements.

-- 
Colin Percival
Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve
Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid

Follow-Ups:
- scrypt with "odd" r or N (Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?)
  - From: Solar Designer <solar@openwall.com>
- Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
  - From: Ron Garret <ron@flownet.com>

References:
- Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
  - From: Laurens Van Houtven <_@lvh.cc>
- Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
  - From: Colin Percival <cperciva@tarsnap.com>
- Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
  - From: Ron Garret <ron@flownet.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
Next by Date: Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
Previous by thread: Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
Next by thread: Re: Canonical way to invoke the KDF?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread