Re: [Ace] Asymmetric signature performance

[Mohit Sethi <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike

At least with our measurements on an 8-bit microprocessor platform, 
1024-bit RSA exponentiation was extremely slow. Please have a look at 
Table 1:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-lwig-crypto-sensors-01

Also, a lot of research in the crypto community is now on faster and 
more efficient elliptic curves. For example, the Crypto Forum Research 
group at the IRTF is currently working on Edwards curve:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-eddsa-08

Hope this helps the discussion.

Thanks
Mohit

On 02/08/2017 04:55 AM, Michael StJohns wrote:
> Hi -
>
> This is sort of non-obvious, but one or two articles I read suggest 
> that RSA 1024 performance may be better than the ECDSA equivalent.
>
> The tradeoff here is obviously the size of the signature and the 
> transmission thereof, but...
>
> While 1024 bits isn't an ideal security strength for RSA, using any 
> asymmetric key system for source authentication in group systems is 
> going to be much better than trying to pretend that symmetric group 
> key systems have any authentication properties at all.
>
> I saw a PPT presentation by Hannes that  didn't include any RSA 
> performance numbers for the ARM processors even though the key sizes 
> were compared. My guess is that someone has numbers for 1024 RSA 
> signatures on the tiny ARM processors that might be useful to throw 
> into the mix.
>
> https://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html has comparison values for a 
> specific library.
>
> What I'm suggesting is that we figure out how to meet the "can't cost 
> anything" requirement with weaker asymmetric keys rather than 
> accepting a low end fantasy of symmetric key multicast authentication.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ace mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace