IETF Logo Mail Archive

[CFRG] BBS+ benchmarks v06

Jaromil <jaromil@dyne.org> Fri, 23 August 2024 20:56 UTC

Return-Path: <jaromil@dyne.org>
X-Original-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0607FC1CAF32 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:56:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.105
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.105 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=dyne.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UhcChTecQXuk for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.dyne.org (mx1.dyne.org [65.109.67.92]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 720DDC1CAF2C for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2024 13:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=dyne.org; s=mail; t=1724446585; bh=5A6ZDBZnYIy4ScQ6rDZ2b88HqYUR8MevoswbW6zVJ/4=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:From; b=aEQl0RjozLDoAxJlmGGJM8rhIvccbDpasl3ppOiu/S0gvjcGajQHdfiV+wMWPCJyl PM5Q+zPn1MqK43vKSiFcy8GoDsN/SxYY4bQbvS5ETdV81JrVMF3lDWBBLFSMGiOvEA MOJ2/Q9GTy410K2ZTXjQBSD+IjK5cA5eHaJY13ck=
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (Authenticated sender: jaromil@dyne.org) with ESMTPSA id 927B9779E3E
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2024 22:52:42 +0200
From: Jaromil <jaromil@dyne.org>
To: cfrg@irtf.org
Message-ID: <20240823205242.c6kg3h652mrddoui@napoli>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID-Hash: AZQRYAJBZ445EV5MGJZEYUMMXLUSJ7PS
X-Message-ID-Hash: AZQRYAJBZ445EV5MGJZEYUMMXLUSJ7PS
X-MailFrom: jaromil@dyne.org
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-cfrg.irtf.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.9rc4
Precedence: list
Subject: [CFRG] BBS+ benchmarks v06
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/ZaVEMMCOrcxZZTzKG5z8YBCtUYs>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:cfrg-owner@irtf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cfrg-join@irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cfrg-leave@irtf.org>

Dear colleagues,

Here is my benchmark analysis of BBS+ at its current version 06.
https://news.dyne.org/benchmark-of-the-bbs-signature-scheme-v06/

In brief: BBS+ performs very well, its data objects size fits NFC tags, and its zero-knowledge proof appears as random data to any external observer.

I welcome your feedback and comments, also suggestions about any other benchmark approach: I will be happy to include it.

Wish you all a great weekend!
Ciao

-- 

  Denis "Jaromil" Roio   Dyne.org think &do tank
  Ph.D, CTO & founder    software to empower communities
  ✉ Haparandadam 7-A1, 1013AK Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  𝄞 crypto κρυπτο крипто क्रिप्टो 加密 التشفير הצפנה
  ⚷ 6113D89C A825C5CE DD02C872 73B35DA5 4ACB7D10

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