[146554] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
[Cryptography] Popular curves (was: NSA and cryptanalysis)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ianG)
Wed Sep 4 02:50:00 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 09:20:03 +0300
From: ianG <iang@iang.org>
To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwip1UZsBtg8PbgH7Ek=gcF1xWdAqCSCob6dzAA6btU-eg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 3/09/13 18:13 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
....
> The real issue is that the P-521 curve has IP against it, so if you
> want to use freely usable curves, you're stuck with P-256 and P-384
> until some more patents expire. That's more of it than 192 bit
> security. We can hold our noses and use P-384 and AES-256 for a while.
>
> Jon
>
>
> What is the state of prior art for the P-384? When was it first published?
>
> Given that RIM is trying to sell itself right now and the patents are
> the only asset worth having, I don't have good feelings on this. Well
> apart from the business opportunities for expert witnesses specializing
> in crypto.
>
> The problem is that to make the market move we need everyone to decide
> to go in the same direction. So even though my employer can afford a
> license, there is no commercial value to that license unless everyone
> else has access.
>
>
> Do we have an ECC curve that is (1) secure and (2) has a written
> description prior to 1 Sept 1993?
(Not answering your direct question.) Personally, I was happy to plan
on using DJB's Curve25519. He's done the research and says it is good.
Comments?
> Due to submarine patent potential, even that is not necessarily enough
> but it would be a start.
iang
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
