ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
|
View:
New views
20 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
| < Prev | 1 - 2 | Next > |
 |
ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Cerebus
::
Rate this Message:
Is anyone working on Suite B stuff?
Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES proper if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to the allowed 128 & 256 bits. SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV is more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's left by the wayside). If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. -- Tim _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
Tim,
It's is great to have you working on this. I didn't implement the other SHA protocols because I didn't see much use in them right now, if you have time to do them that would be great. What we really need is a slang implementation of SHA256 so that we can have a squeak plug-in. Krishna was looking into doing it, maybe he could use some help? Have you done any slang programming for squeak? There is an SHA1 slang implementation which should be a very good place to start for the 256 version. I would love to see more elliptic curve cryptography! Please feel free to contribute. I would be happy to add you to the cryptography repository as a developer if you like. What are your squeaksource initials? Ron Teitelbaum Squeak Cryptography Team Leader > -----Original Message----- > From: cryptography-bounces@... > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of > Cerebus > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 1:24 AM > To: cryptography@... > Subject: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES proper > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to the > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV is > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's > left by the wayside). > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > -- Tim > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by msh
::
Rate this Message:
Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, not
implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include IDEA, MDC2 or RC5. With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother with it? The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES proper > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to the > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV is > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's > left by the wayside). > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > -- Tim > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public domain.
I'll get an opinion on it: > -----Original Message----- > From: cryptography-bounces@... > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of > Matthew S. Hamrick > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM > To: Cryptography Team Development List > Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, not > implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include IDEA, > MDC2 or RC5. > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother > with it? > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: > > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES proper > > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to the > > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 > > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV is > > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's > > left by the wayside). > > > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > > > -- Tim > > _______________________________________________ > > Cryptography mailing list > > Cryptography@... > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > cryptography > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Cerebus
::
Rate this Message:
Certicom also holds patents on a number of ECC things (like almost all
of ECMQV and things like point compression). NSA has licensed Certicom's ECC patents en masse for anything done on US Gov't contract. There's a patent letter on the SECG website: http://www.secg.org/ Part of the problem right now is that ECC work is a bit divided, which has made standardization a bit of a pain. -- Tim On 11/24/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron@...> wrote: > Forgot the link: > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/innercircle/newsletter/0304cto.html > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ron Teitelbaum [mailto:Ron@...] > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 PM > > To: 'Cryptography Team Development List' > > Subject: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public > > domain. I'll get an opinion on it: > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: cryptography-bounces@... > > > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of > > > Matthew S. Hamrick > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM > > > To: Cryptography Team Development List > > > Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > > Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, not > > > implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include IDEA, > > > MDC2 or RC5. > > > > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone > > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother > > > with it? > > > > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear > > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: > > > > > > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > > > > > > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES proper > > > > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to the > > > > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > > > > > > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 > > > > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV is > > > > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's > > > > left by the wayside). > > > > > > > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > > > > > > > -- Tim > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > > Cryptography@... > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > cryptography > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > Cryptography@... > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Re: Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Cerebus
::
Rate this Message:
On 11/24/06, Matthew S. Hamrick <mhamrick@...> wrote:
> With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother > with it? Because it enables its use in products. Without a FIPS certificate, a crypto implementation faces serious hurdles for inclusion in a product (and lately DoD has been cracking down on FIPS waivers). But it's hard to get people to pony up to pay for certification unless there's an immediate use. Chicken, meet egg. :) > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. And that's the rub. I'd love to implement something because: 1) I love crypto, and building an ECC implementation would teach me a great deal about it; 2) It gives me a reason to learn Smalltalk, something I've toyed with a dozen times in the past but never made progress at because I had nothing concrete to work on; and 3) It would just be fun. I'm weird that way. But the last thing I want to do is run afoul of Certicom (or cause others to run afoul of them). So, advice? Should I press ahead? -- Tim _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
What has Sun contributed to OpenSSL? I guess my question is this: If there
are version of ECC that are developed and patented by Sun that have been given to the OS communities, either directly or through the OpenSSL license then can we use their implementation? I wouldn't want to post any code that is not open source in our library which would includes IDEA, MDC2 and RC5. If we find that ECC is only available to government users then I suggest we do not include it in our repository, the risk would be too great. What we need to understand is what ECC technology is currently Open Source and can we do our own implementation and distribute it. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: Cerebus [mailto:cerebus2@...] > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:36 PM > To: Ron@...; Cryptography Team Development List > Subject: Re: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > Certicom also holds patents on a number of ECC things (like almost all > of ECMQV and things like point compression). NSA has licensed > Certicom's ECC patents en masse for anything done on US Gov't > contract. > > There's a patent letter on the SECG website: > > http://www.secg.org/ > > Part of the problem right now is that ECC work is a bit divided, which > has made standardization a bit of a pain. > > -- Tim > > On 11/24/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron@...> wrote: > > Forgot the link: > > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/innercircle/newsletter/0304cto.html > > > > Ron > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ron Teitelbaum [mailto:Ron@...] > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 PM > > > To: 'Cryptography Team Development List' > > > Subject: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public > > > domain. I'll get an opinion on it: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: cryptography-bounces@... > > > > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf > Of > > > > Matthew S. Hamrick > > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM > > > > To: Cryptography Team Development List > > > > Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > > > > Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, > not > > > > implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include > IDEA, > > > > MDC2 or RC5. > > > > > > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most > everyone > > > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why > bother > > > > with it? > > > > > > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > > > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > > > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > > > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > > > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > > > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without > fear > > > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > > > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: > > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > > > > > > > > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES > proper > > > > > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to > the > > > > > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > > > > > > > > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the > SHA2 > > > > > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that ECMQV > is > > > > > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's > > > > > left by the wayside). > > > > > > > > > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > > > > > > > > > -- Tim > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > > > Cryptography@... > > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > > cryptography > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > > Cryptography@... > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Cryptography mailing list > > Cryptography@... > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Re: RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Cerebus
::
Rate this Message:
On 11/24/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron@...> wrote:
> It's is great to have you working on this. I didn't implement the other SHA > protocols because I didn't see much use in them right now, if you have time > to do them that would be great. What we really need is a slang > implementation of SHA256 so that we can have a squeak plug-in. Krishna was > looking into doing it, maybe he could use some help? Have you done any > slang programming for squeak? There is an SHA1 slang implementation which > should be a very good place to start for the 256 version. Never heard of it; thanks for the link. I'll take a look at it. > I would love to see more elliptic curve cryptography! Please feel free to > contribute. I would be happy to add you to the cryptography repository as a > developer if you like. What are your squeaksource initials? Don't have any at the moment. Give me a bit to find some footing and I'll let you know. In the meantime I can route things through you if that's OK. -- Tim _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
>
> So, advice? Should I press ahead? No, let's clarify the license first. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: > Cerebus > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:43 PM B? > > On 11/24/06, Matthew S. Hamrick <mhamrick@...> wrote: > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother > > with it? > > Because it enables its use in products. Without a FIPS certificate, a > crypto implementation faces serious hurdles for inclusion in a product > (and lately DoD has been cracking down on FIPS waivers). But it's > hard to get people to pony up to pay for certification unless there's > an immediate use. Chicken, meet egg. :) > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > And that's the rub. I'd love to implement something because: > > 1) I love crypto, and building an ECC implementation would teach me a > great deal about it; > > 2) It gives me a reason to learn Smalltalk, something I've toyed with > a dozen times in the past but never made progress at because I had > nothing concrete to work on; and > > 3) It would just be fun. I'm weird that way. > > But the last thing I want to do is run afoul of Certicom (or cause > others to run afoul of them). > > So, advice? Should I press ahead? > > -- Tim > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
This is interesting too:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/certicom-ipr-rfc-3446.pdf Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: cryptography-bounces@... > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ron > Teitelbaum > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:55 PM > To: 'Cryptography Team Development List' > Subject: RE: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > So, advice? Should I press ahead? > > No, let's clarify the license first. > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: > > Cerebus > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:43 PM > B? > > > > On 11/24/06, Matthew S. Hamrick <mhamrick@...> wrote: > > > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone > > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother > > > with it? > > > > Because it enables its use in products. Without a FIPS certificate, a > > crypto implementation faces serious hurdles for inclusion in a product > > (and lately DoD has been cracking down on FIPS waivers). But it's > > hard to get people to pony up to pay for certification unless there's > > an immediate use. Chicken, meet egg. :) > > > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... > > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation > > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear > > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > > > And that's the rub. I'd love to implement something because: > > > > 1) I love crypto, and building an ECC implementation would teach me a > > great deal about it; > > > > 2) It gives me a reason to learn Smalltalk, something I've toyed with > > a dozen times in the past but never made progress at because I had > > nothing concrete to work on; and > > > > 3) It would just be fun. I'm weird that way. > > > > But the last thing I want to do is run afoul of Certicom (or cause > > others to run afoul of them). > > > > So, advice? Should I press ahead? > > > > -- Tim > > _______________________________________________ > > Cryptography mailing list > > Cryptography@... > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
RE: RE: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by Ron Teitelbaum
::
Rate this Message:
This is interesting too:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/certicom-ipr-rfc-3446.pdf This appears to be related to TLS. Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: cryptography-bounces@... > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of Ron > Teitelbaum > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:44 PM > To: 'Cerebus'; 'Cryptography Team Development List' > Subject: RE: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > What has Sun contributed to OpenSSL? I guess my question is this: If > there > are version of ECC that are developed and patented by Sun that have been > given to the OS communities, either directly or through the OpenSSL > license > then can we use their implementation? > > I wouldn't want to post any code that is not open source in our library > which would includes IDEA, MDC2 and RC5. > > If we find that ECC is only available to government users then I suggest > we > do not include it in our repository, the risk would be too great. > > What we need to understand is what ECC technology is currently Open Source > and can we do our own implementation and distribute it. > > Ron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cerebus [mailto:cerebus2@...] > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:36 PM > > To: Ron@...; Cryptography Team Development List > > Subject: Re: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > Certicom also holds patents on a number of ECC things (like almost all > > of ECMQV and things like point compression). NSA has licensed > > Certicom's ECC patents en masse for anything done on US Gov't > > contract. > > > > There's a patent letter on the SECG website: > > > > http://www.secg.org/ > > > > Part of the problem right now is that ECC work is a bit divided, which > > has made standardization a bit of a pain. > > > > -- Tim > > > > On 11/24/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron@...> wrote: > > > Forgot the link: > > > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/innercircle/newsletter/0304cto.html > > > > > > Ron > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Ron Teitelbaum [mailto:Ron@...] > > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 PM > > > > To: 'Cryptography Team Development List' > > > > Subject: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public > > > > domain. I'll get an opinion on it: > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: cryptography-bounces@... > > > > > [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf > > Of > > > > > Matthew S. Hamrick > > > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM > > > > > To: Cryptography Team Development List > > > > > Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? > > > > > > > > > > Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, > > not > > > > > implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include > > IDEA, > > > > > MDC2 or RC5. > > > > > > > > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most > > everyone > > > > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why > > bother > > > > > with it? > > > > > > > > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for > > > > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. > So... > > > > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these > > > > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if > > > > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC > implementation > > > > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without > > fear > > > > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets > > > > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? > > > > > > > > > > > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES > > proper > > > > > > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize > to > > the > > > > > > allowed 128 & 256 bits. > > > > > > > > > > > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the > > SHA2 > > > > > > family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. > > > > > > > > > > > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that > ECMQV > > is > > > > > > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if > it's > > > > > > left by the wayside). > > > > > > > > > > > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Tim > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > > > > Cryptography@... > > > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > > > > > > cryptography > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > > > Cryptography@... > > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi- > > bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Cryptography mailing list > > > Cryptography@... > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi- > bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by msh
::
Rate this Message:
There are three primary branches of ECC: even-normal, odd-normal and
ortho-normal. IP covers (I think) ortho- and even-. Sun released (I thought) an implementation of the one that's not covered. Also... Certicom's primary patent is, IMHO, their point-compression patent. Without it, it's hard to make a system that guarantees certain performance requirements. On Nov 24, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote: > I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public > domain. > I'll get an opinion on it: > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: cryptography-bounces@... >> [mailto:cryptography-bounces@...] On Behalf Of >> Matthew S. Hamrick >> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM >> To: Cryptography Team Development List >> Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B? >> >> Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions, not >> implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include IDEA, >> MDC2 or RC5. >> >> With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most everyone >> on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why bother >> with it? >> >> The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for >> Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV. So... >> if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these >> algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if >> part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC implementation >> that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without fear >> of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets >> used in a commercial product, then you've got issues. >> >> On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote: >> >>> Is anyone working on Suite B stuff? >>> >>> Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES >>> proper >>> if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize to >>> the >>> allowed 128 & 256 bits. >>> >>> SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the SHA2 >>> family (SHA384 and SHA512). SHA384 is part of Suite B. >>> >>> Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV? (Well, given that >>> ECMQV is >>> more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if it's >>> left by the wayside). >>> >>> If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces. >>> >>> -- Tim >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Cryptography mailing list >>> Cryptography@... >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >>> cryptography >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Cryptography mailing list >> Cryptography@... >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ >> cryptography > > > _______________________________________________ > Cryptography mailing list > Cryptography@... > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ > cryptography _______________________________________________ Cryptography mailing list Cryptography@... http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography |
|
|
Re: ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
by msh
::
Rate this Message:
|
