News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by conradev on Thursday November 03, 2016 @02:13PM (#12866445)
Wouldn't signing each release with a private key be the simplest solution here?

(that can take many forms, but that general idea is how most software updates currently work)

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by revelation on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:09PM (#12868912)
RSA means big integer which means unhappy performance on devices that often don't even have floating point in hardware. I think elliptic curve could be faster?
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by erichocean on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:25PM (#12869030)
> I think elliptic curve could be faster?

Yes, EdDSA is faster, with 64 byte signatures. Recommended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdDSA

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by adrianN on Thursday November 03, 2016 @04:28PM (#12867638)
Verifying a signature is not the simplest thing to do on hardware that doesn't even support a normal OS.
Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by conradev on Thursday November 03, 2016 @07:20PM (#12868999)
I see, that makes sense. Let's say you implement verification as:

1. Hashing the incoming data

2. Decrypting an attached signature

3. Verifying the decrypted and calculated hash are the same

Even though Step 2 would involve RSA or ECC, wouldn't Step 1 be the most expensive part regardless?

Re:BearSSL – Smaller SSL/TLS by baby on Thursday November 03, 2016 @05:15PM (#12868013)
Yup you are right.