Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org> Thu, 07 June 2018 16:07 UTC
Return-Path: <david.brown@linaro.org>
X-Original-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: suit@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C36E4131167 for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:07:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linaro.org
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 9uyshd831f9X for <suit@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:07:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x235.google.com (mail-it0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 85A131310EC for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jun 2018 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x235.google.com with SMTP id u4-v6so13561207itg.0 for <suit@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linaro.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=HQi7nuS+PVaCN2/BncxdjjbL8KTCIYYtnnfa1MrW34k=; b=DuUCk/Z9q1lmtuKzoVdTgYjeEXXmaML4P5rpOOLXLbZTOrNUC+QA4C1Hkqd056cPlR 7rYA/fvnFqfFIxraBNkySJz/5mzYqx4/Ax6JfgNQ0JwIBZTWymN83renBr5ioCvh6iWl 74IINndOGRsPgVMK3jMdHcqoplWucYBogpU0I=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=HQi7nuS+PVaCN2/BncxdjjbL8KTCIYYtnnfa1MrW34k=; b=Flp39zadVWa+0Hi4BzoMZ1cyFYzJI8e0RiJNMB0xebxftDdurSTSVtIg5hZBdbtmeP JZyoImbW6/qd2aXKWvbIp1uhrTs2Ej6qF5sLEMTtOMDHD7g2gVfqa+ucnQLsSz/Q8kWa ucCQZIQoAS1fXIkd57iHLG2iSjqsbdpFp60gqtNv4uTIClVfSvgEJ+44bl7/RVkVvv/8 o8qN/uLv8cBcTa0DtgICbN6BazxMD4pbTGL7oe2RSca2zbl7HlFbFgNI8Tdp49F5GcHp ormcYUefWxyl3p+PsZgIbWsU70QRzo4jpMCa/czKj3TPk2SmRblIKjjowEfnc0bIOgkS nLbA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E0XV+GL7tAISaRYVLykQzz8gtR4IC0Kdhbfg8kaTqIlTbH+vFIV SJjcTCYsHlzeYkU/PRV3/jwlVWWxqTI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKbhYvyr+fKoa7ZVxyQsh9XVg7l8gaZS8uuVWil3KJWhfluihfrPflLf0Qz40S78QIFNcKsDw==
X-Received: by 2002:a24:2c03:: with SMTP id i3-v6mr2448455iti.90.1528387648858; Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from davidb.org ([2601:283:4300:987c::9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id u132-v6sm1037351itb.20.2018.06.07.09.07.27 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Jun 2018 09:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 10:07:26 -0600
From: David Brown <david.brown@linaro.org>
To: "Thomas C. Schmidt" <t.schmidt@haw-hamburg.de>
Cc: suit@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180607160726.GB11744@davidb.org>
References: <238EC1AC-D898-472D-A951-2AD1438C6004@vigilsec.com> <168ED9F9-15CF-457B-850A-77196D423D08@arm.com> <BF32EDB6-A8A7-4C2E-9F62-3891E59341EE@vigilsec.com> <47a6002fceb54829a95a10bf3adb32ea@HUB01.mailcluster.haw-hamburg.de> <34786b07-8831-8a3c-caea-8e73d91115c1@haw-hamburg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <34786b07-8831-8a3c-caea-8e73d91115c1@haw-hamburg.de>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/suit/9V1Bm1N09WHog-v5HZKe9nagPvE>
Subject: Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac
X-BeenThere: suit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Software Updates for Internet of Things <suit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/suit/>
List-Post: <mailto:suit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/suit>, <mailto:suit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2018 16:07:42 -0000
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:18:32PM +0200, Thomas C. Schmidt wrote: >> My 2 cents for this scenario: the device I'm currently developing for >> (samr21-xplained pro) takes around 8 seconds for ed25519 signature >> verification (TweetNaCl implementation). > >Could this work be significantly flawed? > >We've done the same Edwards curve on the same board with RIOT for >SIGCOMM '15 and an ID-based authentication scheme: 3 sec verification, 1 >sec generation. > >See https://conferences.sigcomm.org/sigcomm/2015/pdf/papers/p603.pdf > >It could be much faster when optimized in assembly code. I don't think assembly is really what is needed, but is more about pre-computed tables and the algorithms used for the underlying EC operations. David
- [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Koen Zandberg
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Russ Housley
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Derek Atkins
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Thomas C. Schmidt
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac David Brown
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Brendan Moran
- Re: [Suit] COSE_Sign vs. COSE_Mac Jim Schaad