Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"

"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Sat, 28 February 2015 23:02 UTC

Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 9069C1A0055 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.968
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.968 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_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 6YHfrSLLo9io for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69F2E1A0053 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8583A888132; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 69.12.173.8 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <91254f799cbff0df44b6d45c80c05374.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <CACsn0ckHyRiLBiRe9Vg4TJMUg-+c8vbB2e-QKuHbuZ_NiqC2UA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C73AAF91123@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <BE305B0B-80D2-48C6-ACE6-6F6544A04D69@vpnc.org> <CACsn0ckHyRiLBiRe9Vg4TJMUg-+c8vbB2e-QKuHbuZ_NiqC2UA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 15:02:04 -0800 (PST)
From: "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: "Watson Ladd" <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/2yTrAXIYdbzEUmbvA3tpKxfywT8>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] On "non-NIST"
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: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:02:05 -0000

On Sat, February 28, 2015 9:17 am, Watson Ladd wrote:
> The reality is lots of new designs are using Curve25519 and Ed25519.
> That's because of factors like simple design of APIs, high
> performance, and very good security. Standards body acceptance is not
> a concern here. Just as the reality is that E-521 was picked by
> Brazil, while the new GOST is still being worked on, and the upper
> size limit is just a random number. But never mind reality: we've got
> to expose "signs of strength". We need big numbers for marketing:
> never mind attackers can't break authentication in the future, while
> mobile devices already struggle to validate certificates. We need to
> vote on endianness: nothing more needs to be said.

  Don't change things for trivial reasons, or no reason at all, and
there won't be a need to vote on them.

> Is anyone surprised we've become a punchline?

  To quote Tonto: what do you mean "we" white man?

  Dan.