Re: [Cfrg] Big-key cryptography

Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> Sat, 12 December 2015 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <azet@azet.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 EC0BD1A87A5 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:49 -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] 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 vdVTqGtaf8Ia for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x236.google.com (mail-wm0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::236]) (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 B26E71A87A1 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x236.google.com with SMTP id p66so9042908wmp.1 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=azet.org; s=gmail; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=L4bkJ3xachZ4o1It/la9Dt+7bE5CfW86x/6LpMxpQOg=; b=CciG3l4pTYwixeknJXTTlNjOnQc6+SVhHnjv33EDoQ0NgIblGMiuvBcvICqCWSePhA C08kML/q9ugH/2aqe+3QE8JdYr3sf05yEQaxyUVWxcJyoAqnwkspQtZMt1mr3Sj4mUrC GPJTmIYjLpesnpm35RSq4T6HjZCArWt0Xy3wc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=L4bkJ3xachZ4o1It/la9Dt+7bE5CfW86x/6LpMxpQOg=; b=TkmsYOPsy1d9yQbXPf8sh14vztzg8mVohqnn3iRuWTP+ZgH0TyELHB/kAiqzGcuyCi RSnFYWrxZD0dAMTn/drPLdcZfXVoQFXg7HCsU/+HTMfr5SrNbIIH8czVkz34Lk6GNQcA YGgNNqjk6NAliAd6IaDSZYmGco+u05QXUme+Vv4MldVeWOjdTyr4eqgbZ4vGDwv0D+F9 AE9Aq40xKZ5X2k8oCnfw1MZW0b/F1pzetEec4r0TxCLro2xGvF8qDGbi9nXcQnLDDg6O wcl2mopU5Myiyjl1ZARLQ43+IvLboQAeEPOftOCobcjhdvbur0lPlRQVyGj4o8wAGqWh 6LHQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmW25gwFDEeh46MmSL4kysVgtcnHRIb1ULGbzDZTVoE9W9rLBB6iu6huCSXD5cYbPA+iMymNLUbDtyPU8ZNLA3Shk9r3w==
X-Received: by 10.194.116.170 with SMTP id jx10mr26142058wjb.166.1449932687357; Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([41.232.114.92]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id un6sm21578863wjc.34.2015.12.12.07.04.45 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 12 Dec 2015 07:04:45 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <566C3791.2050705@azet.org>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:04:49 +0100
From: Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Grigory Marshalko <marshalko_gb@tc26.ru>
References: <5669F8AF.2000008@azet.org> <bcbd3d10ecc43f8bd1e302f095a2ade0@mail.tc26.ru> <803c5559d8b8b2d6853c066ee906355c@mail.tc26.ru>
In-Reply-To: <803c5559d8b8b2d6853c066ee906355c@mail.tc26.ru>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enigFE6D21E2CE04F5C6392C433A"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/NRI4ofariKZ_KzJfmAC9C9tCoNA>
Cc: cfrg@irtf.org
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Big-key cryptography
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 15:04:50 -0000

Hi Grigory,

Grigory Marshalko wrote:
> I've read :) 
> I mean that regardless the specific application of this idea it may be a problem of creating initial key/state/pool large enough. That's the point. But theoretically the whole approach is clear and could used in different mechanisms. That's ok.
> 

I'm not sure that I follow. What specific issues to you see with key
generation? What kind of pool do you have in mind?

Aaron