From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5AAAF1F4B4 for ; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 17:03:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:33342 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKlhe-0000ww-Gn for normalperson@yhbt.net; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:03:42 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34582) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKlhZ-0000vl-Tc for bug-gnulib@gnu.org; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:03:38 -0400 Received: from mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de ([81.169.146.219]:16333) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kKlhX-00073C-90; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:03:37 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1600794211; s=strato-dkim-0002; d=clisp.org; h=References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID:Date:Subject:Cc:To:From: X-RZG-CLASS-ID:X-RZG-AUTH:From:Subject:Sender; bh=yOL7P0z36DtDhM3TFsGTvp9yYJqGk3xRZ4AE0vf2r0g=; b=QRj4OLfhcA9PlAqSJC7Zh1PrxCbYYKOdSVOqYf8KTM6WcRArpZ4GIQifS+SQm3eZ11 W2fAmrssrspeCl5kIngcoKgqwZIUU7J695Mn7kU/OazMALlGXOk0BmyEYMYid1PE0uCU JJ5/V6vayeo+AUiVhiDlMVeDoXS98HjxoW8bLEUQCUzckmCTeO8hohNqn1rR70QMzKJa rUdFZ404y86wKOsnlDbTS1QYNw7NuFhiMemXCGg3e1yKMaG6sDrFN2YgGdD0IeHLY04d H6sSUzuGjm/cZK1utlhKxO1KGuPNcDcxs9kNobSdrcTBqafCqTYdBurluQEGpOiYM0Kc uRmA== X-RZG-AUTH: ":Ln4Re0+Ic/6oZXR1YgKryK8brlshOcZlIWs+iCP5vnk6shH+AHjwLuWOGaf0yJVW" X-RZG-CLASS-ID: mo00 Received: from bruno.haible.de by smtp.strato.de (RZmta 46.10.7 DYNA|AUTH) with ESMTPSA id z05f0fw8MH3ULIY (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (curve X9_62_prime256v1 with 256 ECDH bits, eq. 3072 bits RSA)) (Client did not present a certificate); Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Bruno Haible To: Bruce Korb Subject: Re: gc-pbkdf2-sha1 is deprecated Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 19:03:29 +0200 Message-ID: <1659983.Jv00QytavF@omega> User-Agent: KMail/5.1.3 (Linux/4.4.0-189-generic; KDE/5.18.0; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <133410b7-2cd7-9a24-71e5-e9c6a8e72b14@gnu.org> References: <15f388d6-fd18-178d-e58c-6199e950086c@gnu.org> <133410b7-2cd7-9a24-71e5-e9c6a8e72b14@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Received-SPF: none client-ip=81.169.146.219; envelope-from=bruno@clisp.org; helo=mo4-p00-ob.smtp.rzone.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/09/22 13:03:31 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: bug-gnulib@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: Gnulib discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: bug-gnulib@gnu.org Errors-To: bug-gnulib-bounces+normalperson=yhbt.net@gnu.org Sender: "bug-gnulib" Hi Bruce, > The failing difference isn't whether or not I use gc_pbkdf2_hmac vs. > gc_pbkdf2_sha1, the failing difference is whether or not I specify the > crypto/gc-pbkdf2-sha1 module vs. the crypto/gc-pbkdf2 module. I'm not really familiar with these. Does the libgcrypt documentation help, maybe? Bruno