IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [DNSOP] Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on key lengths...

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 03 April 2014 13:11 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90BCE1A032A for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 06:11:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.562
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.562 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 lVN9lyu-QO00 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 06:11:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D7A71A0337 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 06:11:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s33DBiEh063242; Thu, 3 Apr 2014 15:11:45 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201404031311.s33DBiEh063242@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 01 Apr 2014 23:02:07 EDT. <0A834FBB-9ACA-46DE-AAAA-4F35296E806C@ogud.com>
Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 15:11:44 +0200
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/-NMo8fPTaExwaCFAE9xHp6JAC1c
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.org>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [DNSOP] Whiskey Tango Foxtrot on key lengths...
X-BeenThere: dnsop@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF DNSOP WG mailing list <dnsop.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dnsop/>
List-Post: <mailto:dnsop@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop>, <mailto:dnsop-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 13:12:00 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>  The verification performance is bad, P256 takes 24x times longer to verify a
>  signature than 2048 bit RSA key. 

=> I got a different figure (6x) for my ECC paper, and:
 - it was published the 3 may 2013 so one can expect ECC performance
  has been improved since I got it

 - P256 ECDSA is stronger than 2048 bit RSA so it is like comparing
  oranges and grapefruits.

BTW if signing is faster than verifying it is not an ECC property
but an (EC)DSA one.

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

PS: to come back to the 1024 vs 2048 discussion: 1024 bit RSA is weaker
than some might want but there is (and will be in a reasonable time
frame) no practical attack against it. In fact I am more concerned
by possible (?) attacks against a rollover chain...

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email