Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Mon, 28 July 2014 18:52 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 CB17E1A0A6D for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:52:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 JJt8uU3zO98l for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 809DB1A083D for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 11:52:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F639BE01; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:52:06 +0100 (IST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wUBQrwG5xcP9; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:52:05 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [10.87.48.11] (unknown [86.44.64.225]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 433EABE4D; Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:52:05 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <53D69BD5.1040904@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 19:52:05 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm-sec@htt-consult.com>, Michael Jenkins <m.jenkins.364706@gmail.com>
References: <CA+Vbu7xroa68=HOZtbf=oz7kK2EeUv_z1okpnjxHPR0ZtHD5cA@mail.gmail.com> <53D66506.4080809@htt-consult.com> <CAC2=hnfsZHAmnzmVAkQeKN3P1rrO+CfrJSjjWjKCb9awsrUGYA@mail.gmail.com> <53D692A8.6040105@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <53D692A8.6040105@htt-consult.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/IFWvLdo9EW8VAkfJz3HLsaQHbDM
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited
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: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:52:09 -0000
Hi Bob, On 28/07/14 19:12, Robert Moskowitz wrote: >> > > Some of it is NOT internet protocols. IEEE 1609.4 WSMP is a MAC direct > protocol. In 1609, it is all about broadcast messages, as every car > needs to receive it and there is NO time for any setup. Sign the > message, get your channel allocation and send. There is IP for some > stuff, but most of that is V2R (roadside). If we tackle a proper CANbus > (now there is an interesting non-protocol) replacement, most of it will > be a MAC message format. And then there is SMS. I can keep coming up > with cases where there is no IP (IEEE 11073), or IP only occurs at the > gateway (pacemaker (IEEE 802.15.6) to hospital). > > The lack of an Internet layer, and maybe even a transport layer with > only a message (session) layer or just MACsec, does not mean no > security. Security happens at many layers other than IP (IPsec) or > Transport (TLS, DTLS, SRTP (or is that session)). I think it'll be interesting to see if the work done on new curves here maps well or badly to lower layers. I do not think that's a reason to hold up this work though - most lower layer ECC is afaik done in h/w that is not amenable to change and for which I don't know of any desire for change. If someone doing 1609 in h/w really wanted some new curves that'd be interesting for sure, but again I do not think we should hold up this work for that purpose. Given the relative timing and differing modus operandi of the various SDOs involved, trying to incorporate such requirements could easily add 6 months or more of nothing but delay. S.
- [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Benjamin Black
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Yoav Nir
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Paterson, Kenny
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited David Jacobson
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Watson Ladd
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Andrey Jivsov
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Michael Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Michael Jenkins
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Michael Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Stephen Farrell
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Michael Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Michael Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Paul Lambert
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Mike Hamburg
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Andrey Jivsov
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Ransom
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Robert Moskowitz
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Russ Housley
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Salz, Rich
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Phillip Hallam-Baker
- Re: [Cfrg] Curve selection revisited Salz, Rich