HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
Tarsnap
scrypt
C2016–2021
Tarsnap / scrypt

scrypt

The scrypt key derivation function was originally developed for use in the Tarsnap online backup system and is designed to be far more secure against hardware brute-force attacks than alternative functions such as PBKDF2 or bcrypt.

5Distinct people
5Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
522GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

The scrypt key derivation function was originally developed for use in the Tarsnap online backup system and is designed to be far more secure against hardware brute-force attacks than alternative functions such as PBKDF2 or bcrypt.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year5 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2016-02-19 17:41:59 UTC to 2021-12-01 20:34:44 UTC.

012016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments20162017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2021

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC110

What Hacker News says

5 sources

Ask HN: Where to ask for feedback about a cryptography related tool

First of all I know that "implementing your own cryptography is bad". However, at some point, one does stumble upon a use-case that is not (well) covered by existing tools. Now, assuming one has already done his due-diligence and has read (and hopefully understood at least the main ideas of) cryptography related RFC's / papers / articles / posts / etc. (especially in the area pertaining to what one wants to build), and thus we can assume one is not a complete newbie in this mater, however, nor is he an expert. Basically we can assume he is an "amateur". Where would one go with his design to ask for feedback about it, in the hope to at least eliminate some weaknesses that one (as a non expert) might have overlooked. (I'm not speaking here about "proofs" or "audits".) ---- More specifically ---- but please let's not get into this right n
Read the rest
ow, this being just an example ---- I'm trying to implement something similar to `scrypt` (the encryption utility, that uses the `scrypt` PBKDF, <https://github.com/Tarsnap/scrypt>) or `age` (<https://github.com/FiloSottile/age>), as a replacement to my current solution that relies on GnuPG.
8 points · Open discussion
https://github.com/Tarsnap/scrypt Side note, I've seen a number of places (including the Scrypt repo) compare bcrypt brute-force benchmarks without specifying the bcrypt work factor. It's very frustrating to see this, considering the time to compute a single bcrypt hash can be < 0.01 seconds (ie. work factor 7 or 8), or more than 1 minute (ie. work factor 20). I'm not familiar with scrypt, but it looks like instead of providing a work factor, you can provide inputs like "max time to compute hash" and "max percent of ram to use computing hash" which presumably scales up as hardware becomes more powerful?
In Bcrypt Step-by-Step
Unless compatibility with gpg is a requirement, I think scrypt[0] is a much simpler tool for file encryption. The utility is meant to showcase the KDF of the same name. It's very simple and has virtually no parameters. So: $ xz -k elrond_minutes.txt $ scrypt enc elrond_minutes.txt.xz elrond_minutes.txt.xz.enc $ signify -S \ -s vilya.key \ -m elrond_minutes.txt.xz.enc \ -x elrond_minutes.txt.xz.enc.sig $ rm elrond_minutes.txt{,.xz} Signing the final output is probably extraneous; I think scrypt uses a HMAC. This involves invoking multiple tools, but since each tool only does one thing it's much easier to reason about, and I prefer this over using an omnibus tool like gpg. [0] https://github.com/Tarsnap/scrypt
In Using GPG to Encrypt Your Data

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.