-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Hash result is different from scrypt library. #5
Comments
I didn't write the underlying js-script, it was copied from an asm compiled version about 6 years ago... so I cannot really comment on that aspect, all I did at that time was write wrappers so that I could at least run a few instances in the background in node via a pool of connected workers. I should probably just deprecate the package in npm and point to one of the other versions... IIRC, when I wrote it, my results were matching a .Net implementation... Do you have one you would recommend over the others? |
Aside, I don't know that I should fix it.. if anyone is using this library currently, I could maybe bump the full version with a NOTE and make this just a wrapper against one of the other libraries you're referencing. |
Looks like the upstream version I used in my copy had an incompatibility with the current one... https://github.com/tonyg/js-scrypt/commits/master/browser/scrypt.js Again, more than open to suggestions on a library to wrap around the same interface... though, should also consider the newer worker in node 11.7 as well as a Promise based interface. |
@tracker1 Thank you for your answer. I found the difference among that libraries. Each library has different function parameter. Now, I include 'scrypt' on webpack bundling, it works well! Thank you again :) |
I'm trying to apply this library, but there's an problem.
Compare to other libraries, hash result is totally different.
Here's example code for verification.
Only this library returns a different result.
Are there any option to fix this situation?
I'm looking forward to your answer.
Thank you.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: