On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Samuel Neves wrote
(on the cryptography@metzdowd.com list):
> [2] http://www.cs.umd.edu/~jkatz/papers/dh-sigs-full.pdf
I've been looking at that one, with an eye to using it in the One
Hundred Year Cryptography project that is being sponsored by Google as
part of
On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Jerry Leichter wrote:
> There are some concrete complexity results - the kind of stuff Rogoway does,
> for example - but the ones I've seen tend to be in the block
> cipher/cryptographic hash function spaces. Does anyone one know of similar
> kinds of results for
* Thierry Moreau:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>> * Thierry Moreau:
>>
>>> For which purpose(s) is the DNS root signature key an attractive
>>> target?
>>
>> You might be able to make it to CNN if your spin is really good.
> But even without this self-restraint, there would be no spin for a CNN
> stor
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Thierry Moreau:
For which purpose(s) is the DNS root signature key an attractive
target?
You might be able to make it to CNN if your spin is really good.
Thanks for this feedback.
No, no, and no.
No, because I asked the question as a matter of security analysis
m
* Thierry Moreau:
> For which purpose(s) is the DNS root signature key an attractive
> target?
You might be able to make it to CNN if your spin is really good.
-
The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe
On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 09:46:18AM -0400, John Lowry wrote:
> My own speculation is that the security community and its interests are
> perhaps a bit broader than than some members wish it were.
>
> If you want to see some interesting physics that represents unexpected
> results relevant to commu
Jerry Leichter wrote:
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Samuel Neves wrote:
EC definitely has practical merit. Unfortunately the patent issues
around
protocols using EC public keys are murky.
Neither RSA nor EC come with complexity proofs.
While EC (by that I assume you mean ECDSA) does not have
Steven Bellovin writes:
> While I'm quite skeptical that QKD will prove of practical use, I do
> think it's worth investigating.
I agree. What I don't understand is why people are trying to
*commercialize* it, or claiming that it is of practical use as it
stands.
> The physics are nice, and it
On Apr 20, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>
> Via /., I saw the following article on ever higher speed QKD:
>
> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2010-04/19/super-secure-data-encryption-gets-faster.aspx
>
> Very interesting physics, but quite useless in the real world.
>
> I won
While I'm quite skeptical that QKD will prove of practical use, I do think it's
worth investigating. The physics are nice, and it provides an interesting and
different way of thinking about cryptography. I think that there's a
non-trivial chance that it will some day give us some very differen
On 2010-04-22 9:17 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 9:40 PM -0400 4/20/10, Victor Duchovni wrote:
EC definitely has practical merit. Unfortunately the patent issues around
protocols using EC public keys are murky.
This is starting to turn around. More vendors are questioning the murk. Pleas
Victor Duchovni wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 08:58:25PM -0400, Thierry Moreau wrote:
The DNS root may be qualified as a "high valued" zone, but I made the
effort to put in writing some elements of a "risk analysis" (I have an
aversion for this notion as I build *IT*controls* and the consulta
On Apr 21, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Samuel Neves wrote:
EC definitely has practical merit. Unfortunately the patent issues
around
protocols using EC public keys are murky.
Neither RSA nor EC come with complexity proofs.
While EC (by that I assume you mean ECDSA) does not have a formal
security pro
13 matches
Mail list logo
