IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [CFRG] Psychic Signatures

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 21 April 2022 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
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 A68053A1740 for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.248, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.248, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=no autolearn_force=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 qNwK5xomA9lp for <cfrg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yw1-f178.google.com (mail-yw1-f178.google.com [209.85.128.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 512473A0CE9 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yw1-f178.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-2ef4a241cc5so60195747b3.2 for <cfrg@irtf.org>; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:38:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DjF5mtRne1f6g6fHgOm1AwAeKWsJ9ArNvctSN+rSVyA=; b=D+zUhTvWodiYvTsZIZNu8VYVOv4wAhcDMC1ZWOA9o7amK6aiVR+yFyZms2MDmuPmQ6 11GkZjafXMFHUBTO7YzIYO3Dmh1ipaUuTPs6rJeDb1J3ydrzcJizGIyPQp0E0Wy40oqn SoS/gFr13DYBNjQ67/9kYty1LBkkLxw1jN02Waqs26Nyuo1lVGl5gYxb7LdW/xeca1pQ fYZl1yPnc9Uv07mcWkcADigNvsvIOea5YW6vR8JFilB710uLpk+CGjc5NgMymU3bzxCA h7OMrcqX4nAteZgRJus+TJsrMF4mhGDzgEPQrkh8/Yjjk0aOqPkeSR3ycFnKD55h7Jgd ypHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532D3lIwIr2HgvevHUpDzi9VoH2AJw09Yw06GMj0Lzt2hGvVK7EI piUJ3Nd6AbFwt4N70+UDlOjfS8A+wHYHKy1AQ5928Nwbbjg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxlNcAEgm+SZUTPogth9fCNTyaewlxTlNtX9JcRTPSpuNaErGeuJZ/9sYK7gV8ui0iJS74hXQ96QJ/u6xOQpX0=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:690c:289:b0:2eb:e870:4f90 with SMTP id bf9-20020a05690c028900b002ebe8704f90mr858967ywb.250.1650562735387; Thu, 21 Apr 2022 10:38:55 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <SY4PR01MB62519FEA53D39AABAF0BD0F4EEF49@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <2CBA5AE5-DF84-4E9C-85DA-4DC38464710A@ericlagergren.com> <SY4PR01MB6251CA4D5F7C83FA564FD204EEF49@SY4PR01MB6251.ausprd01.prod.outlook.com> <000B0CDA-8664-43EE-BA6A-B83E3DBE26EF@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <000B0CDA-8664-43EE-BA6A-B83E3DBE26EF@gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 13:38:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwg1wG5TMCqzW4DOh6y3QPS=XpZhgf+XOs3poZSp1=FaZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Neil Madden <neil.e.madden@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, IRTF CFRG <cfrg@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000085b69005dd2d95de"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/cfrg/zroSRXD14hS4Cr3laUUG-zY-PEM>
Subject: Re: [CFRG] Psychic Signatures
X-BeenThere: cfrg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <cfrg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/cfrg/>
List-Post: <mailto:cfrg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg>, <mailto:cfrg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 17:38:58 -0000

Looking through the responses, I note that there is no Wycheproof test
vector set for Ed25519 (there is for Ed448).

Seems to me like it would be a good idea to publish the test vectors as an
RFC so that implementers of the algorithms have extended testing advice. I
know that we have not done this in the past but I don't see that as a good
reason not to do the right thing now.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email