IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 02 April 2014 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 5D2821A01E1 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:04:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] 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 OLX6krfDQqn4 for <dnsop@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 463D91A0222 for <dnsop@ietf.org>; Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:04:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.8/8.14.7) with ESMTP id s32E4cjh073766 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 2 Apr 2014 07:04:39 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-1-98-175.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.1.98.175] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <0A834FBB-9ACA-46DE-AAAA-4F35296E806C@ogud.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 07:04:37 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87AF4915-7720-4E61-86F7-A8E7BD155615@vpnc.org>
References: <0EA28BE8-E872-46BA-85FD-7333A1E13172@icsi.berkeley.edu> <53345C77.8040603@uni-due.de> <B7893984-2FAD-472D-9A4E-766A5C212132@pch.net> <102C13BE-E45E-437A-A592-FA373FF5C8F0@ogud.com> <474B0834-C16B-4843-AA0A-FC2A2085FEFB@icsi.berkeley.edu> <CFA0ED6F-6800-4638-90B0-CD414301C501@ogud.com> <2665E768-F3C0-4061-B7F0-B196294C8266@vpnc.org> <0A834FBB-9ACA-46DE-AAAA-4F35296E806C@ogud.com>
To: Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dnsop/MaMTHSCBBE1n7808I68ACf3DqnE
Cc: dnsop WG <dnsop@ietf.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: Wed, 02 Apr 2014 14:04:51 -0000

On Apr 1, 2014, at 8:02 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote:

> 
> On Apr 1, 2014, at 10:48 PM, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Apr 1, 2014, at 7:37 PM, Olafur Gudmundsson <ogud@ogud.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Why not go to a good ECC instead ? (not sure which one, but not P256 or P384) 
>> 
>> Why not P256 or P384? They are the most-studied curves. Some of the newer curves do have advantages, but they are also newer.
>> 
>> --Paul Hoffman
> 
> 
> The verification performance is bad, P256 takes 24x times longer to verify a signature than 2048 bit RSA key. 
> Studied != good performance

I believe that there are no elliptic curves that get *much* better verification speeds that P256/P384. Some are a bit faster, but not even close to RSA2048. From your question "Why not go to a good ECC instead", I assumed you were caring about predictability against attacks and key length, which are the strengths of elliptic curve cryptography.

--Paul Hoffman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email