Re: ECC in OpenPGP

[Hironobu SUZUKI <[e-mail]>]

Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hironobu SUZUKI <[e-mail]> writes:
> 
> >I wrote some program for Ruby OpenSSL Sample.
> 
> Thanks for posting that.  Would it be possible to break them down a bit 
> further to show sign and verify times separately?  A big downside of DLP-based 
> PKCs is that verification is quite slow, which really bites you in a 
> sign-once, verify-many situation.
> 

You can run test your own computer.  This program for ECC/160,
RSA/DSA1024. h2np.net is my site.

 $ wget -O i.taz  'http://h2np.net/tips/wiki/index.php?plugin=attach&pcmd=open&file=sign_test.tar.gz&refer=RubyOpenSSLDigitalSignatureSample'
 $ tar zxvf i.taz
 $ cd sign_test
 $ for i in *.rb; do ruby  $i speed ; done
 DSA signature test ...OK
 Speed test start...Done
 Signing 0.297371 msec
 Verify  0.293092 msec
 S+V     0.590463 msec
 EC signature test ...OK
 Speed test start...Done
 Signing 0.401606 msec
 Verify  0.427266 msec
 S+V     0.828873 msec
 RSA signature test ...OK
 Speed test start...Done
 Signing 0.501700 msec
 Verify  0.028194 msec
 S+V     0.529893 msec

Speed depends on openssl library of your system. For example, RSA under
opensolaris + openssl-0.9.8h is slow because configuration of
openssl-0.9.8h can't handle sungcc well.  I don't know about last
openssl.

I agree about sign-once, verify-many situation. It's nice for Software
distrubution. But if user want to sign on their e-mail with RSA/4K, it
is too slow and users must be patient.

I think RSA/3K is acceptable for Desktop computer. Please see 'PI
Calculation Time Ranking' on my site.

  http://h2np.net/pi/pi_record_e.html

Desktop CPU has been faster and faster, implementation technique become
more sophisticate. I think RSA/3K is not faster but acceptable.

I'm wondering RSA/4K is 'practically' required within next ten years.

Regards,

---
Hironobu SUZUKI <hironobu at h2np dot net>
Tokyo, Japan.
http://h2np.net