Re: [Cfrg] Not the same thread -> was Re: Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves around 256bit work factor (ends on March 3rd)

[Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>]

I don't see that asking for data as a rant.

Early in the process it was implied that we would be making the decision on
the basis of data. If people give me the facts I may change my opinion.




On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Paul Lambert <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Could we please get some discipline on this list to not pollute
> conversation threads – especially well formed threads asking for poll with
> random questions, comments and rants.
>
> Paul
>
>
> From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <[e-mail]>
> Date: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 at 8:22 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> Cc: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Rerun: Elliptic Curves - preferred curves around
> 256bit work factor (ends on March 3rd)
>
> Do we have figures for performance of these versus RSA2048?
>
> Yes, we get a reversal of the public/private speed advantage on signature.
> And that in itself is a huge win on the server side
>
> RSA signature verification takes 0.16 ms on a reasonably current machine
> (signature is 6ms)
>
> http://www.cryptopp.com/benchmarks.html
>
> How much faster/slower one curve is over another matters much less to me
> than whether the curve is faster or slower than what I am already using. I
> am not going to be using P521 or P448 curves on a constrained device, I
> will go for P255.
>
> If we had figures comparing the curve candidates to RSA it would probably
> be illuminating.
>
>
>
>