Re: [Cfrg] Schnorr just as vulnerable to bad RNG

Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> Fri, 25 July 2014 14:23 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=900A=4U=acm.org=bmoeller@srs.kundenserver.de>
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 E72451B286D for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.929
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.929 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 Au5v_qnYgA5f for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:23:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B9DBF1B28DA for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:22:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yk0-f170.google.com (mail-yk0-f170.google.com [209.85.160.170]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (node=mreue004) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0Lu0I6-1WTHEi2MJ4-011Olw; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 16:22:34 +0200
Received: by mail-yk0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 9so2880871ykp.29 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.185.132 with SMTP id u4mr14009275yhm.95.1406298153435; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.170.129.17 with HTTP; Fri, 25 Jul 2014 07:22:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <53D26695.3090005@gmail.com>
References: <20140725131738.6639765.60290.17138@certicom.com> <CADMpkcJD_qXkNFECQ4YoBUhyxQJNrh1=K6gAGfJ23jFWaD51-Q@mail.gmail.com> <53D26695.3090005@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2014 10:22:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CADMpkcLq6qPfee-sf7i0e5_MC7YeSNdpaYb3ZF+aVpikuP16vw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
To: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf30549ca1e24b5504ff054df7
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:OBzKKYcVButAb2qTLBKLv2+6OWTTlo0s5RxUs7EfMmx B1gqz61TDtbV4nmPnhsaFGmwkoC08DHA3h0tQRIPgAB0VDMTP9 3jirM3zg22p0J5VbMek+dKJa+t+d90KoPZm7fbMtyFVnBKZ7am aycDf2v1mvCFoH24NJ3RyXeQTHDXTEWaFEM7u5mwrxqdKC0OGv l2qX90/x7nBbTNs/uq62igRQqpwn11CaxPNqGGLHas8Niqr3EL b21vc6RHeiPpwehqoThyDT4o5ylHPVkjJ0F40epSIkbyoFtNFw inB7oCTzDjyi27ulooVCONjNnc1xOHcPTGslh831bEceHSzDCZ oZKYLw9GR4l/Da6WTrVOH2ulqJ3CseN1RgeyOq6Ws57G1nYJbm TsXOgT1tOM22K3Rcx5TANGfLevUrJxTVj1+I9XOH8bO5ZEA5Fm hqFSM
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/h5ypYBM-K2TAlS9yNDGfF5JTPW8
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Schnorr just as vulnerable to bad RNG
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, 25 Jul 2014 14:23:05 -0000

>  RFC 6979 - Deterministic Usage of the Digital Signature Algorithm (DSA)
> and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) (August 2013)
>

Thanks!

That's not what I thought "melding both these ideas" meant; I thought it's
about mixing (presumed) randomness *with* deterministic inputs (such that
you end up with deterministic usage if and only if the "PRNG" is actually
constant).

Bodo