IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Actual security levels for IETF crypto

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Fri, 31 October 2014 14:14 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 5E7031A902C for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:25 -0700 (PDT)
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 FKJUJNFRFpn9 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-x233.google.com (mail-yk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 559A21A9025 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id 131so3342745ykp.10 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=YZbSBoyhZ6pFJxTaQ3HC7gF3d5RRmQxLxYBdirt1IkY=; b=mfhB9MPjTEN1AXV5kcF4amFjtZ2/MBTa+Hmxi7Ux5PmV4j9Ncfi7TYBiIxJ7XY5QP3 U32RHSthb4GvBqheQUBHkmxYhYKfw2+6XSPPoM+R7W1nLHHSfjf+sUULOSKuiT9turPy K6CrIQe7hIJmexXJTUS6vdU0y/2rmILmv/cETWah54WTpKl6RnJda+aFxQEWPUp8T8x9 pALZJE38TmO5Q2x3JlGyfqymIh1N/KYzX7j1vp3Z5+eGkrVV1Hffk1ZYQjTkkmnUQkJ3 BtuseIWJ5j8Q+YPHlEiJTr0vPsJFqXPK3Wom7/k5flCYwHsThjpivlzim/C+VGj5YS5y OWzw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.7.52 with SMTP id 40mr9260507yho.172.1414764859611; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.195.149 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <54539870.2050003@cs.tcd.ie>
References: <810FD859-5CE9-4163-9749-973ED4F810CA@gmail.com> <CA+Vbu7yvQedeGJx-a1bC4KKZk6zwU0a=jxzw-JcTwGnQy9WCaw@mail.gmail.com> <20141029194708.5993.qmail@cr.yp.to> <m2mw8db73p.wl%randy@psg.com> <CA+Vbu7xgmON5459+14hs7zwx8hyA=atT1BjJx6=TxPAxpW3b0Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAL02cgTtn8Ae4Xz_zVUtgwLSkDjdL=Gr6udD2XjytbtoBq7QTA@mail.gmail.com> <m2sii48yog.wl%randy@psg.com> <545342CF.4090503@akr.io> <CAL02cgTUAQrkXUdqEXKZoOgUxLF2qkiDDFfBoLQR-HM3u26RkQ@mail.gmail.com> <54539870.2050003@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 07:14:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0ckuV0vCQZOgZA=3fX38xF0_NbVFqmtLb3YkGAgPhoThBA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/Ck0BkJy0qPvTyP0V9Gv1MxZk3TA
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Actual security levels for IETF crypto
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: Fri, 31 Oct 2014 14:14:25 -0000

On Fri, Oct 31, 2014 at 7:10 AM, Stephen Farrell
<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
>
>
> On 31/10/14 14:05, Richard Barnes wrote:
>> The idea that whiz-bang new crypto is the main barrier to 100% HTTPS
>> adoption seems rather naïve.  It helps,
>
> I agree. Of course, having CFRG decide on precisely
> which whiz-bang new crypto would be a good next step:-)

But our choices are not the fastest ones! We've decided to have genus
1 prime, no CM, which is a very conservative choice, but not
necessarily the fastest.

Anyway, since Benjamin Black has said he doesn't actually think we
should pick NUMS, but do our own picking, I think the answer is
clear...
>
> S.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status