IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] big-endian short-Weierstrass please

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Thu, 29 January 2015 20:23 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=9471f473ec=uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 226B61A01A8 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:23:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.208
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.208 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=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 CQaU9yGX8hnM for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:23:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx1.ll.mit.edu (MX1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.45]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B57F01A702B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 12:23:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K10-HUB01.mitll.ad.local) by mx1.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id t0TKNSca012383; Thu, 29 Jan 2015 15:23:28 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Thread-Topic: [Cfrg] big-endian short-Weierstrass please
Thread-Index: AdA6QfeHnVWfJGNlTzek7rmrn4E15gBEvvUAAAkmA5D///TDAIAACxgA//+0JACAAW5uAP//wsgngABbjQD//8TFAAALA4SAAAm/WIA=
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:23:06 +0000
Message-ID: <D0F0008D.205A3%uri@ll.mit.edu>
References: <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF5D42BDA@XMB116CNC.rim.net> <87386ug2r7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <810C31990B57ED40B2062BA10D43FBF5D4413B@XMB116CNC.rim.net> <87r3ueedx7.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <20150128231006.GJ3110@localhost> <D0EED79E.204B1%uri@ll.mit.edu> <878ugleei5.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <CAMm+LwhD8ZmuO7_OsGYX_VARYT=gDJSkZVavxXkTOvfFLJ-Usg@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0ckb4xW7gTP4m9BHkQe-Y00Y306wOcuEoSQ25XLeXX14UQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAMm+LwixbMKC+JYRJv2chgBG=dkgqxTNyDY4WZYbKQNzk6isaw@mail.gmail.com> <D0EFF650.2058C%uri@ll.mit.edu> <DA764660-62CE-47C8-B903-78B5B75CD6DB@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <DA764660-62CE-47C8-B903-78B5B75CD6DB@vpnc.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.4.7.141117
x-originating-ip: [172.25.177.187]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3505389779_919117"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:5.13.68, 1.0.33, 0.0.0000 definitions=2015-01-29_06:2015-01-29, 2015-01-29, 1970-01-01 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=7.0.1-1402240000 definitions=main-1501290196
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/WPss_tTwXZZK-LZbtNnL3tigJ0o>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] big-endian short-Weierstrass please
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: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 20:23:39 -0000

>>No, in this group we don’t seem to be having trouble with that. But I’m
>>sure NIST did not have any trouble with security of their selected
>>curves. Likewise, BRAINPOOL didn’t seem to worry about security of
>>theirs (ask Tanja, she was there :), DJB is certain of his curves, etc.
>> 
>> See my point?
>
>No. Are you saying that you will only use curves that NIST says are
>secure? Or that somehow CFRG has to convince NIST?

No. How about “I trust neither NIST nor you, and probably you less than
NIST”? 


>>How would you convince others that BRAINPOOL might have had something up
>>their collective sleeve, but you don’t?
>
>That seems irrelevant.

???

>Some people will never be convinced of some things that most other people
>agree to.

:-)

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email