Re: [Crypto-panel] PAKE Selection Process: Round 2, Stage 2

["Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev" <[e-mail]>]

Dear Watson and Ben, Hugo, Björn,

Now we're at Stage 3 of the second round of the PAKE selection process.
Please provide your replies for the questions (related to your PAKEs) for
Round 2 listed at
https://github.com/cfrg/pake-selection#questions-for-round-2. Please do
that until February, 10th and send your replies to [e-mail].

I believe that it will be good if you make your answers detailed enough, so
that there won't be many additional clarifying questions from the reviewers.

Best regards,
Stanislav,
CFRG Secretary



пн, 9 дек. 2019 г. в 15:43, Stanislav V. Smyshlyaev <[e-mail]>:

> Dear CFRG,
>
> According to the plan of Round 2 of the PAKE selection process, additional
> questions for all four remaining candidates have been collected from CFRG
> participants (and Crypto Review Panel members) via [e-mail] .
>
> We've obtained the following list of questions:
> 1) (to SPAKE2): Can you propose a modification of SPAKE2 (preserving all
> existing good properties of PAKE2) with a correspondingly updated security
> proof, addressing the issue of a single discrete log relationship necessary
> for the security of all sessions (e.g., solution based on using
> M=hash2curve(A|B), N=hash2curve(B|A))?
> 2) (to CPace and AuCPace): Can you propose a modification of CPace and
> AuCPace (preserving all existing good properties of these PAKEs) with a
> correspondingly updated security proof (maybe, in some other security
> models), addressing the issue of requiring the establishment of a session
> identifier (sid) during each call of the protocol for the cost of one
> additional message?
> 3) (to all 4 remaining PAKEs) : Can the nominators/developers of the
> protocols please re-evaluate possible IPR conflicts between their
> candidates protocols and own and foreign patents? Specifically, can you
> discuss the impact of U.S. Patent 7,047,408 (expected expiration 10th of
> march 2023) on free use of SPAKE2 and the impact of EP1847062B1 (HMQV,
> expected expiration October 2026) on the free use of the RFC-drafts for
> OPAQUE?
> 4) (to all 4 remaining PAKEs) What can be said about the property of
> "quantum annoyance" (an attacker with a quantum computer needs to solve
> [one or more] DLP per password guess) of the PAKE?
> 5) (to all 4 remaining PAKEs) What can be said about "post-quantum
> preparedness" of the PAKE?
>
> Please let the chairs and the Crypto Review Panel members know (before
> December, 17th) if any questions (collected via  [e-mail])
> have been lost or misinterpreted (or something needs to be added).
>
> Best regards,
> Stanislav,
> CFRG Secretary
>