Brendan Moran <[email protected]> wrote: > That said, I think it’s an open question whether HSS-LMS or Falcon is > more appropriate for a constrained device signing reports in response > to firmware loading. HSS-LMS has a fixed number of reports and a > strategy key, while Falcon may have a timing side-channel, depending on > implementation.
Are the signed reports required to survive on their own over a CRQC? If not, if they are essentially signed and then transmitted upstream where they might be added to an append-only log, then the signature from the device neededn't survive very long. I think that the reports could be signed by the firmware updateble application code, and so could be adapted from EcDSA to EdDSA to SPHINX+ to SuperFalcon2050 as time goes by. _______________________________________________ COSE mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
