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

With respect to both questions: No.

The CFRG has already had ample opportunity to display its utility.

In addition, it seems very likely that additional academic research will be
done as a result of various other standards bodies' interest in this topic.

It would therefore be premature for CFRG to take any action on a
high-security-strength curve, even if it were at all plausible it was
capable of taking any.

David Leon Gil
Yahoo

(Sending from my Google account because the CFRG listserv forges From:
headers. Pace DMARC deniers.)
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 2:50 PM Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
wrote:

> On Tue 2015-02-10 14:15:09 -0500, Станислав Смышляев wrote:
>
> > the Russian digital signature standard strictly requires that the
> > order of the prime subgroup of a curve either lies between 2^(254) and
> > 2^(256) or lies between 2^(508) and 2^(512) - and one won't generate a
> > curve with a cofactor of 512 (=2^(521-512)).
>
> This feels a bit like begging the question to me: without more
> explanation, saying the "Russian digital signature standard strictly
> requires" still seems arbitrary.  Does the Russian digital signature
> standard provide an explicit rationale for the upper bound?
>
> Maybe more detail would be useful:
>
> Will there be systems unable to adopt new recommended curves at that
> security level because of a larger group?  how many?  what sorts of
> systems?  Which Russian digital signature standard exactly?  Can you
> provide a pointer so that people unfamiliar with it can see what the
> constraints are themselves?
>
> How much will the Russian Digital Signature standard need to be updated
> to allow the use of any new curves?  If it needs to be updated anyway,
> could it be also updated to allow 521-bit curves if we manage to get a
> rough consensus from other participants?
>
> By comparison, the NIST folks (from the US gov't) seem open to
> considering new curves in the near future.  Is that flexibility
> something that the agency governing the standards in question can also
> provide?
>
> I think we can take your concerns into better consideration (and we can
> make better decisions as a group) the more details we know about these
> constraints.
>
>         --dkg
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg@irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg
>