newpavlov
commented
3 years ago Sounds good! But I fear our choices could be controversial. For example, should we use the green badge for argon2 (assuming we had it in this organization), even though some argue that it's worse than scrypt on runtimes smaller than ~1s? What about pbkdf2? Compared to modern alternatives it is weaker to ASIC and GPU based attacks, but using the red badge looks like an overkill and it does not fall under the definition of the grey badge as well.
Also I think the danger sign on such small fonts is not distinguishable enough (and it's with 4K display). so it's probably better to remove it.
tarcieri
Edit: this is in-progress. See the following tracking issues:
We have a few open issues about algorithm guidance, such as https://github.com/RustCrypto/password-hashes/issues/48
While we have some precedent for this, such as the "Security" rubric here:
https://github.com/rustcrypto/hashes#supported-algorithms
...we don't have a consistent way of communicating this information across all repos/crates, which I think would be helpful.
I'd like to propose adding a "recommended" badge to each crate which uses the following rubric and links back to documentation (similar to HAZMAT.md) about what the badge means.
Recommended: Yes
Preferred modern algorithms we suggest people embrace in new projects.
Recommended: Neutral
Algorithms which are still considered secure, but are obscure, uncommonly used, and/or poorly-analyzed.
Recommended: No!
Algorithms which are known to be cryptographically broken and should only be used because legacy interop requires it.