IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on security levels (ends on February 17th)

Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be> Tue, 10 February 2015 18:34 UTC

Return-Path: <kurt@roeckx.be>
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 50A811A1B6F for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:28 -0800 (PST)
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, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 UQmxtHXI6hS9 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from defiant.e-webshops.eu (defiant.e-webshops.eu [82.146.122.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 455531A1B5B for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 10:34:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from intrepid.roeckx.be (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by defiant.e-webshops.eu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3644E1C2017; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:34:24 +0100 (CET)
Received: by intrepid.roeckx.be (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 158871FE057F; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:34:23 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 19:34:23 +0100
From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <20150210183423.GA9338@roeckx.be>
References: <54D9E2E3.4080402@isode.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <54D9E2E3.4080402@isode.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/iDRv09MeW8eBPKhovjSkAdWCwKg>
Cc: "cfrg@irtf.org" <cfrg@irtf.org>
Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Elliptic Curves - poll on security levels (ends on February 17th)
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: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 18:34:28 -0000

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:52:19AM +0000, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> CFRG chairs are starting a poll, containing 2 initial questions:
> 
> Q1: Should CFRG recommend a curve at the 192-bit security level?
> 
> Q2: Should CFRG recommend a curve at the 256-bit security level?

It's my understanding that 2^128 is currently considered to be
safe with a large enough margin.  Is there an estimate for when
we believe we need more than 2^128?  Would something around 2^160
then be enough?


Kurt

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email