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



On Aug 26, 2:06 pm, pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Aug 26, 1:59 pm, Tom St Denis <t...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

On Aug 26, 1:47 pm, pubkeybreaker <pubkeybrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

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?

In the CLASSIFIED ARENA, it is not the primary concern.

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot, NIST establishing a standard for industry
must have only intended it for the TOP SECRET CLASSIFIED ARENA...

And I suspect even in classified applications efficiency comes up. Or
is the Military not subject to the same laws of physics that govern
heat dissipation, power consumption, latency, etc that the rest of us
are? Your argument is as lame as this thread has become pointless [it
seems]. You can't defend a position by saying "There is a counter
argument I just can't tell you." If that's your position you should
recuse yourself from the discussion since you have nothing to
contribute.

For the rest of us, there are plenty of applications where added
efficiency at no cost to security is nothing but a godsend.

Tom
.