Perhaps there should be a ECLOW, ECMEDIUM, and ECHIGH. Curves with 80-bits of security (e.g., secp160) would be low; while 256-bits of security (e.g., secp521) would be high. I'm not sure how to slice the 128- and 192- bits of security, though. Perhaps a medium-low and medium-high?
On Mon, Oct 7, 2013 at 3:41 AM, Jeffrey Walton <[email protected]> wrote: > While experimenting with CIPHER_LIST: > > "kEECDH:kEDH:kRSA:AESGCM:AES256:AES128:SHA256:SHA84:SHA1:!aNULL:!eNULL:!EXP:!LOW:!MEDIUM!MD5"; > > Wireshark showed a few curves that were not expected for for the > cipher list configuration. See attached. > > I guess I expected to see something like: > > HIGH => 256 to 192-bit security level > MEDIUM => 128 to 112-bit security level > LOW => 80-bit security level > > Or perhaps: > > HIGH => 256 to 192-bit security level > MEDIUM => 128-bit security level > LOW => 112 to 80-bit security level > > Or even: > > HIGH => 256-bit security level > MEDIUM => 192 to 128-bit security level > LOW => 112 to 80-bit security level > > Translating security levels to curve sizes, HIGH would use the 571-bit > (256 sl), 521-bit (256 sl), 409-bit (192 sl) and 384-bit (192 sl) > binary curve; etc. > > I can't cite a reference at the moment because NIST's website is > unavailable due to the US government shutdown. > > Its kind of odd the 192-bit security level stuff is showing up > considering AES128 and AES256 are available, but not not AES192. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
