IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on security levels (ends on February 17th)

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Tue, 10 February 2015 15:00 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CDBD1A9037 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:15 -0800 (PST)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 leop0R5gP2OD for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x232.google.com (mail-yk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::232]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60E001A9034 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-f178.google.com with SMTP id q200so14479415ykb.9 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=HvU+rfu7opk93jtCR4b0ToQUT4zYNWnoEbjlBKlFR1w=; b=A5EnPvuICK2T3HeJWykdFIdmDLim1kfuqsECigw2wdO005jar/icJHPRptC+HMsIJQ 5K0UiQGy1A+aDnCORTjAKPAij24dadOfFu565gKnJyX7s1SNePOb7j6FFHiFW1A+lPJd v/PYdyQB6WDxhzXVNTIUuO1773ovtwSslre59KyIMNWnkD95wQjtvhhW29w17pn1y1rD nNJi/IdUHM3nd76su0w/aisFQ6LnsmNiUzbTaVjWTVYf1j3HS7i8kPsVG45HJHGMsYtr TdflyV35TLvJHbC76ujIxgejBuIY6vjlJfM5oUd+sVJKvWbUJT8jlLKZKUp0ReUl5fT/ b0nw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.220.65 with SMTP id n61mr3958021yhp.44.1423580410568; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.126.10 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:10 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54D9E2E3.4080402@isode.com>
References: <54D9E2E3.4080402@isode.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 07:00:10 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cn-wB_0P2Z-MYi-zYpS1wsf=4qDvByRBK9iCnU=OsB1jw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2hc7195L2zsy7uFCO36vafPg2CA>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on security levels (ends on February 17th)
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.irtf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 15:00:15 -0000

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:52 AM, Alexey Melnikov
<alexey.melnikov@isode.com> wrote:
> CFRG chairs are starting a poll, containing 2 initial questions:
>
> Q1: Should CFRG recommend a curve at the 192-bit security level?
>
> Q2: Should CFRG recommend a curve at the 256-bit security level?
>
> Answering Yes/No to each of these would suffice.
>
> Once this first set of issues is resolved, we will move to choices of prime
> at the selected security level(s), if any. After that we will be
> discussing implementation specifics and coordinate systems for
> Diffie-Hellman. We will then make decisions on signature schemes.
> Please don't discuss any of these future topics at this time.

Does this mean that 2^448-2^224-1 is not being considered?

Does this mean that 2^414-17 is not being considered?

How much distance from 2^192 is allowed? How much from 2^256? Would
2^521-1 be an acceptable prime at the 256 bit level?

I don't know what the above questions mean, so I can't say yes or no.

Sincerely,
Watson Ladd
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg



-- 
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither  Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email