Re: [Cfrg] ECC reboot (Was: When's the decision?)

[Ilari Liusvaara <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 11:21:43AM +0200, Johannes Merkle wrote:
> 
> Alyssa Rowan wrote on 16.10.2014 19:38:
> > I can see why they might want that, if VPR is the most convenient
> > for their implementations - but from what I see from the hesitant
> > adoption of Brainpool in the wider community,
> 
> this assertion is only true for software implementations. Brainpool
> curves are used by more than 50 million smart cards rolled out and
> several vpn solutions (e.g., based on IPSec) widely used within
> German and EU public authorities.

And what's wrong with just using Brainpool for implementations that
need random primes for extended side channel resistance? Not rigid
enough? Not standard enough?


For software implementations only needing defenses against software
attack (including attacks from different process in the same host/VM)
there is plenty wrong with using Brainpool.

If attacker can get enough access to pull off EM attacks against most
of the endpoints, one has more severe problems than software vulernable
to EM attack.

There is a good reason (singular!) why NIST/NSA curves are used far far
more in TLS than Brainpool, despite there being codepoints for both:
Performance.


-Ilari