News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by bsder on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @09:52PM (#16751214)
The real question is which of these have actually been vetted.

I trust NaCl and, specifically, DJB-associated implementations thereunto. Lots of people have looked at it. I trust DJB and his cohorts to think about and mitigate footguns as much as practical.

STROBE is right about a year old. Maybe it's awesome, but it almost certainly hasn't been vetted sufficiently.

I seem to recall that most PAKE's relied on one of the nice properties that modular exponentiation has that doesn't work for ECC. IIRC, quite a few of the PAKE's tried to use ECC and fell into the trap and created a breakable PAKE.

The patent situation around PAKE's didn't help. Fortunately, those patents just expired.

> If you’re doing embedded you need a security person around.

Apple couldn't even get it right. They implemented an 3072-bit SRP that takes almost 15-20 seconds on Cortex M0/M3 series processors unless you have an exponentiation accelerator (Cortex-M4).

If Apple can't get it right, what chance do those with far less resource have?

A list like the parent article but tailored to embedded would be quite welcome.

Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by lvh on Tuesday April 03, 2018 @10:41PM (#16751459)
My argument was specific to embedded crypto. If I don’t have to care about size constraints then yes, I’m going to make a better-understood recommendation than STROBE. Re “I trust DJB”: if you’re going to trust individual implentors, I suggest that the median cryptographer is going to suggest you can do a lot worse than “literally Mike Hamburg” here. I certainly will.

Re: PAKEs: yes, some PAKEs and related protocols are hard to port to ECC. For example, SRP doesn’t port cleanly from FF to an elliptic curve group because it actually needs a field. But I called out SPAKE2 for a reason: porting SPAKE2 to ECC is easy.

Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by tptacek on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @12:18AM (#16751864)
Why do you trust Bernstein more than you trust Mike Hamburg?
Re:Cryptographic Right Answers by bsder on Wednesday April 04, 2018 @11:32PM (#16761547)
I suspect its lingering litigation distrust of RAMBUS and association with Stanford connections.

RAMBUS got shafted by the DRAM manufacturers, but they pulled a LOT of shady crap of their own and Stanford was in the thick of it.

While I have no belief that Mike Hamburg was ever in the middle of that, I have some concerns about what might or might not be patented once RAMBUS's lawyers get done with it.