Re: Addition to SHS...?
From: Lassi Hippeläinen (lahippel_at_ieee.orgasm-research.invalid)
Date: 12/03/03
- Next message: Paul Rubin: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Previous message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- In reply to: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 2003 07:37:49 GMT
Roger Schlafly wrote:
>
> "Kim Hyldgaard" <kim.hyldgaard@dxd.ericsson.se> wrote
> > What the reason for specifying a 224? - Obviously one could think of
> > computation speed, but since it's based on 256?
>
> It is an odd announcement. There is an official NIST elliptic curve of
> that size, but there are other sizes as well, and usually truncation is
> necessary.
They plan to use those 32 bits for something else?
It could be an backward compatibility issue: by taking the 32 bit token
from the signature field they can fit it in existing protocol specs. A
similar idea has been proposed to counter the Barkam-Biham-Keller attack
against GSM A5.
-- Lassi
- Next message: Paul Rubin: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Previous message: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- In reply to: Roger Schlafly: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Next in thread: Paul Rubin: "Re: Addition to SHS...?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|