Re: [Cfrg] Security proofs v DH backdoors

Peter Gutmann <> Mon, 31 October 2016 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B84091295DE for <>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:39:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.497] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1LtdIWjibVYa for <>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E5A01295E4 for <>; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 02:39:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1477906745; x=1509442745; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=+E1lolzmzpnqTwl16fOfIFmpWws67BSE5yfF0bI/Loo=; b=BwJtoImc5z7pbhvD9oQydJTffocEBB1xd7E94Jp/6aJ3OI2S+g2hP/3Z a25CHmxAhd0U2uPhPNYsjc3PA2xLwNmAIYkt9LlwQPoitLHzdwjIygzUc ernCU655aHKoL1zRMfAvgjEcKnwuAtKIu2jOxRFDZscfiSiuwBkS/b8q6 r7R0ZjptDf3FasaHFL6sW6gjyxPM3Iw7OMzlUpz2awGzQ1f3UsLiyMRUm kb1jeMMLeHI7WboHmDv83n8E6ECXt3DYAmjo1VRfTAikB+KzjPAENu8z/ 5PA7je3rrXASc69A0ViX1h9pKC0CQismqEG7YGd9Fa1ZXeqiD+X7EhBpD w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.31,426,1473076800"; d="scan'208";a="112831322"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from (HELO ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 31 Oct 2016 22:39:04 +1300
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1178.4; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:39:03 +1300
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1178.000; Mon, 31 Oct 2016 22:39:03 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Hanno_B=F6ck?= <>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] Security proofs v DH backdoors
Thread-Index: AQHSMEAWZy2e+SPalEyp/G+CJ2BAv6C9nFXG//8p9wCAANysfP//MsuAgAQGRaj//8M4gAA2rKs6
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:39:02 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <20161027125120.4d260334@pc1> <> <20161028114758.6a361db1@pc1> <> <20161028124319.082acf90@pc1> <>,<20161030213315.1937114d@pc1>
In-Reply-To: <20161030213315.1937114d@pc1>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: CFRG <>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Security proofs v DH backdoors
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2016 09:39:07 -0000

Hanno Böck <> writes:

>Peter, I find your line of reasoning very dishonest.

Uh, it's exactly what it says on the box, if you use a repeated k you're
toast, and a fault in the RNG will give you a repeated k.

>You bring up an example that has nothing to do with ECC. The PS3 issue is a
>well known problem of both classic / finite field DSA and ECDSA. How is that
>an argument for the brittleness of ECC?

Because a faulty RNG won't kill RSA?

>As far as I see several of the papers you mention also talk about attacks
>against RSA or DSA.

Sure, but ECC just seems a lot more vulnerable to these problems than RSA
does.  And then if you want to defend against the problem the cost for a
pairwise consistency check for an RSA sig. is almost free (the public-key op
takes close to no time), while for DSA/ECDSA it has about the same cost as the
private-key op.  Looking at the ever-useful Crypto++ benchmark timings, that
makes a pairwise-consistency-checked ECDSA-256 sig. operation nearly twice as
expensive as a checked RSA-2048 one.