IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ace] Group Communication Security Disagreements

Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com> Mon, 25 July 2016 14:17 UTC

Return-Path: <derek@ihtfp.com>
X-Original-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ace@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FF4D12D8A5 for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:17:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ihtfp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUdFVU5tX9cc for <ace@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org (MAIL2.IHTFP.ORG [204.107.200.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14F4F12D8B8 for <ace@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 07:17:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F40DE2030; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:17:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail2.ihtfp.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail2.ihtfp.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024) with ESMTP id 25162-03; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:17:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from securerf.ihtfp.org (IHTFP-DHCP-159.IHTFP.ORG [192.168.248.159]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "mocana.ihtfp.org", Issuer "IHTFP Consulting Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by mail2.ihtfp.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 495FFE200A; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:17:39 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ihtfp.com; s=default; t=1469456259; bh=10gN2DbKpjzc99EImn7ZSLxSRLHjTIfT2u+v70Iukcs=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To; b=F8zn+wVmNUOFOg5QkIIxC4Rq4txEPTwxdkZTGL6JNX9qXSCgDCpXoF3U0t/V9uCXC rqMVAP9sq3hGXtmdD0MB+d5nb6lbAuGOFaJtG4fHQBG2HLSdo+66w3DZ1lQhtzzza/ MlUPR7K0TZ+VfBCaaMKqR7U/QLlNult2O1bKDqiY=
Received: (from warlord@localhost) by securerf.ihtfp.org (8.15.2/8.14.8/Submit) id u6PEHckm012512; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:17:38 -0400
From: Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
References: <57909032.10809@gmx.net>
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 10:17:38 -0400
In-Reply-To: <57909032.10809@gmx.net> (Hannes Tschofenig's message of "Thu, 21 Jul 2016 11:04:50 +0200")
Message-ID: <sjmfuqx6bul.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.2a
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ace/KyRWdEo1ED4AYwcNx2d31Q5O5D8>
Cc: "Ace@ietf.org" <Ace@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ace] Group Communication Security Disagreements
X-BeenThere: ace@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Authentication and Authorization for Constrained Environments \(ace\)" <ace.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ace/>
List-Post: <mailto:ace@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace>, <mailto:ace-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 14:17:46 -0000

Hannes,

Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net> writes:

> * What are the implications for power consumption?
>
> Here is my initial impression regarding the second aspect from a
> performance analysis I ran on an LPC1768. It took 458 msec to do a
> verify computation with optimization enabled* for a secp256r1 curve.
> The LPC 1768 demo board uses a ARM Cortex-M3 CPU running at 96MHz.
>
> I also did a performance test with the STM DISCO-F746NG, which uses
> a Cortex-M7 CPU running at 216 MHz. For the ECDSA secp256r1 verify
> operation it took 10, 205 msec.

Is this Ten Thousand Two Hundred Five msec (e.g. 10+ seconds)?  Or is
this Ten decimal Two Hundred Five msec?

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins                 617-623-3745
       derek@ihtfp.com             www.ihtfp.com
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status