Re: [cryptography] scrypt to IETF

2012-09-18 Thread Simon Josefsson
Rob Kendrick r...@rjek.com writes:

 On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:19:52PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
 Folks, scrypt has been mentioned on this mailing list a couple of times,
 so I wanted to give a pointer to the following recent IETF draft:
 
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-scrypt-kdf-00
 
 As usual, review and feedback is appreciated.

 Are you looking for language issues (spelling and grammar, plenty of
 things to report), the implementations/detail, or the cryptography?  Or
 all three?

Everything!  English isn't my native tongue, so I'm sure there is plenty
of room for improvement there (offlist please, to reduce noise).

General comments on the cryptography/implementation side is probably
more useful to discuss in public on this list (unless the list manager
disagree of course).

/Simon
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] scrypt to IETF

2012-09-18 Thread Rob Kendrick
On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:19:52PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
 Folks, scrypt has been mentioned on this mailing list a couple of times,
 so I wanted to give a pointer to the following recent IETF draft:
 
 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-josefsson-scrypt-kdf-00
 
 As usual, review and feedback is appreciated.

Are you looking for language issues (spelling and grammar, plenty of
things to report), the implementations/detail, or the cryptography?  Or
all three?

B.
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] abstract: Air to Ground Quantum Key Distribution

2012-09-18 Thread Natanael
Does anybody here take quantum crypto seriously? Just wondering. I do not
see any benefit over classical methods. If one trusts the entire link and
knows it's not MitM'd in advance, what advantage if any does quantum key
distribution have over ordinary methods? And isn't it just as useless
otherwise as the ordinary methods?

- Sent from my tablet
Den 18 sep 2012 17:20 skrev d...@geer.org:


 http://www.qcrypt.net/docs/extended-abstracts/qcrypt2012_submission_12.pdf

 QCrypt, Singapore, 12 September 2012

 Air to Ground Quantum Key Distribution

 Sebastian Nauerth1, Florian Moll, Markus Rau1, Christian Fuchs,
 Joachim Horwath and Harald Weinfurter1

 The range of quantum key distribution (QKD) systems is known to be
 limited to a few hundreds of km due to the attenuation of the channel
 and the finite signal to noise ratio of available detectors. Satellite
 based systems, however, could provide efficient links for global
 scale QKD. While both classical satellite downlinks and long range
 terrestrial free-space QKD were shown successfully, a quantum key
 exchange with a rapidly moving platform is still missing.  Here we
 report on the first experimental demonstration of a BB84 QKD
 transmission from an airplane at a speed of 290 km/h to ground. Our
 system uses attenuated laser pulses with a mean photon number of
 mu=0.5 and polarization encoding. Over a distance of 20 km a stable
 link was achieved for 10 min yielding a sifted key rate of 145
 bits/s with a quantum bit error rate (QBER) of 4.8 %.

 ___
 cryptography mailing list
 cryptography@randombit.net
 http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography

___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] abstract: Air to Ground Quantum Key Distribution

2012-09-18 Thread Zack Weinberg
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Does anybody here take quantum crypto seriously? Just wondering. I do not
 see any benefit over classical methods. If one trusts the entire link and
 knows it's not MitM'd in advance, what advantage if any does quantum key
 distribution have over ordinary methods? And isn't it just as useless
 otherwise as the ordinary methods?

I've seen claims that quantum key agreement lets both parties detect a
man in the middle with no prior communication and no trusted third
party.  If that's true it would obviously be huge.  I don't know
enough about the topic to assess whether it's actually true.

It seems obvious to me that you'd only use quantum crypto to set up
symmetric keys for a secure channel, just like you don't use RSA for
bulk encryption right now.

zw
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] abstract: Air to Ground Quantum Key Distribution

2012-09-18 Thread Natanael
It can detect passive snooping, not full MITM.

- Sent from my tablet
Den 18 sep 2012 18:17 skrev Zack Weinberg zack.weinb...@sv.cmu.edu:

 On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote:
  Does anybody here take quantum crypto seriously? Just wondering. I do not
  see any benefit over classical methods. If one trusts the entire link and
  knows it's not MitM'd in advance, what advantage if any does quantum key
  distribution have over ordinary methods? And isn't it just as useless
  otherwise as the ordinary methods?

 I've seen claims that quantum key agreement lets both parties detect a
 man in the middle with no prior communication and no trusted third
 party.  If that's true it would obviously be huge.  I don't know
 enough about the topic to assess whether it's actually true.

 It seems obvious to me that you'd only use quantum crypto to set up
 symmetric keys for a secure channel, just like you don't use RSA for
 bulk encryption right now.

 zw

___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography


Re: [cryptography] abstract: Air to Ground Quantum Key Distribution

2012-09-18 Thread Nico Williams
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 10:30 AM, Natanael natanae...@gmail.com wrote:
 Does anybody here take quantum crypto seriously? Just wondering. I do not
 see any benefit over classical methods. If one trusts the entire link and
 knows it's not MitM'd in advance, what advantage if any does quantum key
 distribution have over ordinary methods? And isn't it just as useless
 otherwise as the ordinary methods?

It's that time of the year again :)  Maybe we can save ourselves the
trouble (assuming there's really nothing new to add here, and I do
think there isn't) and just say read the archives.

Nico

PS: If you do read the archives you'll see I'm in the QKD is a
curiosity/novelty camp.
___
cryptography mailing list
cryptography@randombit.net
http://lists.randombit.net/mailman/listinfo/cryptography