Re: google + bit of time == ecc curve that is better

On Aug 26, 1:47 pm, pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:25 pm, Tom St Denis <t...@xxxxxxx> wrote:> On Aug 26, 1:06 pm, g...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (Greg Rose) wrote:

 I'm positive there are smart people working in the

government.  My point really is to poke holes in the notion that
they're infallible, or necessarily did a great job on the ECC specs
[likewise the "need" for AES-256].

Did you ever consider the fact that their criteria differs from yours?
Or that their objectives might be different?

Nah!   Of course not.

True or false, efficiency is a big [but granted not the sole] concern
of cryptographic solutions?

True or false, reduced radix reduction is faster universally than
montgomery reduction?

True or false, suitable ECC curves in fields generated by reduced
radix moduli are possible?

What criteria or attribute do random primes have over specifically
chosen ones that makes the optimized moduli less suitable for
security?

You're telling me they had a set list of criteria that didn't include
the efficiency of the end result? If that's true I'm telling you
that's not smart. If you can make a curve over a faster field with
the same security you're pretty much stupid [or ignorant] for not
doing so.

Tom
.

Quantcast