IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Hipsec] Removing DH 384-bit group

Oleg Ponomarev <oleg.ponomarev@hiit.fi> Tue, 27 April 2010 20:10 UTC

Return-Path: <oleg.ponomarev@hiit.fi>
X-Original-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: hipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5061F3A6845 for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:10:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tz6M+trsdQ4V for <hipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from felwood.infrahip.net (felwood.infrahip.net [IPv6:2001:708:140:220::3]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C8223A6803 for <hipsec@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 13:10:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from stargazer.pc.infrahip.net (stargazer.pc.infrahip.net [IPv6:2001:708:140:220:21e:4fff:fe92:4522]) by felwood.infrahip.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id o3RK9N5c030344; Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:09:23 +0300
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 23:09:23 +0300
From: Oleg Ponomarev <oleg.ponomarev@hiit.fi>
X-X-Sender: ponomare@stargazer.pc.infrahip.net
To: Robert Moskowitz <rgm@htt-consult.com>
In-Reply-To: <4BD186B4.1010002@htt-consult.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004272304340.13095@stargazer.pc.infrahip.net>
References: <4BD06975.9040605@htt-consult.com> <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004230951410.13095@stargazer.pc.infrahip.net> <4BD186B4.1010002@htt-consult.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23)
X-GPG-FINGRPRINT: E94D 632A 70E4 3F92 9A7E B04E 20BF FC6B 983B CA5E
X-GPG-PUBLIC_KEY: http://ponomarev.ru/oleg.asc
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Cc: "hipsec@ietf.org" <hipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Hipsec] Removing DH 384-bit group
X-BeenThere: hipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the official IETF Mailing List for the HIP Working Group." <hipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/hipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:hipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec>, <mailto:hipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 20:10:50 -0000

Greetings! On Fri, 23 Apr 2010, Robert Moskowitz wrote:

>>> This is a very weak DH group we put in to have some DH for weak systems.
>>> 
>>> How does the computational cost of ECDH-256 compare to it? How small of a 
>>> ECDH key would be of similar computational cost (and probably stronger)? 
>>> Seems easier to add a small ECDH that keep this weak key in.
>> 
>> DH384 takes ~124 usec using Intel Xeon E5440 @ 2.83GHz
>> ECDH112 -/- 175 usec (56-bit strong and weakest available in OpenSSL)
>> 
>> With Nokia tablet N810:
>> DH384 ~5.0 msec
>> ECDH112 ~4.6 msec
>> ECDH128 ~5.2 msec
>> ECDH160 ~7.7 msec
>> (DH768 ~33.9 msec)
>
> Great numbers. thanks. Do you have a ECDH equiv for 100bits strength (as the 
> DH-1536 seems to work out to)? Probably ECDH-200 or there abouts.

Sure, ECDH-192 takes 384 usec for the Xeon and 11.8 msec for N810.


> In my searching for info on this, I encountered a dead link for a paper of 
> yours on EC with HIP....

It is available, e.g. at http://www.cs.helsinki.fi/u/gurtov/papers/ecc.pdf

-- 
Regards, Oleg.

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status