Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

amazon.science

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#81

Post by astrange »

posnet wrote: post #13
4gotunameagain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many manhours spent on finding better ways to shovel around money and pocket what falls from the cracks. What a wasteful and unproductive enterprise, considering the vast majority of the devised improvements never see the public eye. Still, impressive work. Imagine if those brilliant minds behind this were focused somewhere else.

The greatest minds of our generation spend their time thinking about how to: - make people click on ads - make trading algos faster - replace human artists - build more efficient killing machines - destroy any remaining concept of privacy

Aren't the greatest mind(s) of our generation writing Terry Tao's blog posts?

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#82

Post by webXL »

jandrese wrote: post #62
webXL wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the “b-word” dirty?

It's hard to separate from the sea of grifters, con men, cranks, and scammers that infest the domain. Just using the word is a yellow flag that you might be some kind of whacko, even if all you really want to talk about is the math. People have to forever be on guard that you might at any point pivot to all taxation is theft or how you have formed your own micro nation that consists entirely of yourself and thus have…

Why do people need to be on guard for those beliefs? People should be critical thinkers and not thought police.

Granted, there are all kinds of whackos in crypto, but we should only be concerned about the immoral ones trying to scam us out of our money: SBF, Do-Kwon, and the like.

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#84

Post by toast0 »

saghm wrote: post #46
toast0 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My (probably naive) understanding is that 25519 already provided better performance than other algorithms used for similar purposes (e.g. RSA) when tuned for a roughly similar level of security; anecdotally, generating 2048-bit or larger RSA keys for me tends to be a lot slower than ed25519. My also naive (an possibly out of date) understanding is key generation is much faster in with ecc, and that signing is faste…

> My also naive (an possibly out of date) understanding is key generation is much faster in with ecc, and that signing is faster too, but verifying is faster for rsa. So switching from a RSA to an ECC server certificate saves bytes on the wire, because keys are smaller, and saves server cpu because signing is faster, but may increase client cpu because verification is slower. The byte savings may make up for the incr…

On my ancient box, only including a few lines of output:

   $ openssl speed rsa ecdsa

                     sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
   rsa 1024 bits 0.000117s 0.000008s   8518.7 132449.2
   rsa 2048 bits 0.000884s 0.000025s   1130.6  39499.3

                                 sign    verify    sign/s verify/s
    256 bits ecdsa (nistp256)   0.0000s   0.0001s  33210.9  11483.0
    384 bits ecdsa (nistp384)   0.0009s   0.0008s   1070.6   1268.9
It's 11 k verify/s for ecda vs 39k verify/s for rsa-2048. A TLS handshake needs at least one sign and verify from the server cert, plus some verifies for the signature on the cert chain (but those signatures are used over and over).

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#85

Post by geodel »

posnet wrote: post #13
4gotunameagain wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So many manhours spent on finding better ways to shovel around money and pocket what falls from the cracks. What a wasteful and unproductive enterprise, considering the vast majority of the devised improvements never see the public eye. Still, impressive work. Imagine if those brilliant minds behind this were focused somewhere else.

The greatest minds of our generation spend their time thinking about how to: - make people click on ads - make trading algos faster - replace human artists - build more efficient killing machines - destroy any remaining concept of privacy

Greatest mind of previous generation made nuclear bombs and other deadly things.

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#86

Post by geodel »

vladms wrote: post #23
posnet wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The greatest minds of our generation spend their time thinking about how to: - make people click on ads - make trading algos faster - replace human artists - build more efficient killing machines - destroy any remaining concept of privacy

This directly implies that all the people that did useful stuff (improving cancer survivability, new vaccines, renewable energy, and others) are all "below" the "greatest minds of our generation". Not to mention it also suggests there is a way to "compare" minds. I would not choose myself to do somethings, but that does not mean I despise automatically people choosing to.

I think they meant greatest minds have to be greatest money earners also. Else they are not greatest minds.

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#87

Post by sweeter »

webXL wrote: post #82
jandrese wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to separate from the sea of grifters, con men, cranks, and scammers that infest the domain. Just using the word is a yellow flag that you might be some kind of whacko, even if all you really want to talk about is the math. People have to forever be on guard that you might at any point pivot to all taxation is theft or how you have formed your own micro nation that consists entirely of yourself and thus have…

Why do people need to be on guard for those beliefs? People should be critical thinkers and not thought police. Granted, there are all kinds of whackos in crypto, but we should only be concerned about the immoral ones trying to scam us out of our money: SBF, Do-Kwon, and the like.

people are legitimately buying farming land in the US and currently suing farmers for "anti-trust" for refusing to sell them their land so that they can quite literally create a crypto based sovereign micro-nation of wealthy tech VC's. [1] and I think that is a selfish, vile and delusional thing to do. It has nothing to do with "thought police" its as simple as looking at the impact of their actions and beliefs and making the decision to reject that way of thinking and way of life.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHlcAx-I0oY

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#88

Post by notfed »

westurner wrote: post #78
notfed wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kyber768 is the post-quantum algorithm in that example, not x25519.

From "OpenSSL 3.4 Alpha 1 Released with New Features" (8 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41456447#41456774 : > Someday there will probably be a TLS1.4/2.0 with PQ, and also FIPS-140 -4? > Are there additional ways to implement NIST PQ finalist algos with openssl? - open-quantum-safe/oqs-provider [implements mlkem512 through mlkem1024 and x25519_mlkem768]

Not sure what you're trying to say here . x25519 is objectively not PQC and never claimed to be, and this isn't debatable.

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#89

Post by westurner »

notfed wrote: post #88
westurner wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From "OpenSSL 3.4 Alpha 1 Released with New Features" (8 days ago) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41456447#41456774 : > Someday there will probably be a TLS1.4/2.0 with PQ, and also FIPS-140 -4? > Are there additional ways to implement NIST PQ finalist algos with openssl? - open-quantum-safe/oqs-provider [implements mlkem512 through mlkem1024 and x25519_mlkem768]

Not sure what you're trying to say here . x25519 is objectively not PQC and never claimed to be, and this isn't debatable.

In this case, hybrid means "not entirely PQ".

Re: Better-performing “25519” elliptic-curve cryptography

#90

Post by tptacek »

saghm wrote: post #74
tptacek wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure. It's a failing of the ecosystem. That observation, a cup of coffee, and 1-3 years will get you a Kenny Paterson paper stunt-breaking your system. I feel where you're coming from, but, respectfully: it does not matter. My thing here is just: learn the math! Or do something else. I did! There is so much to do in our industry.

> My thing here is just: learn the math! Or do something else. I did! There is so much to do in our industry. I'm not sure I understand what you mean here by "something else in our industry". Are you arguing that I'm not qualified to be a software engineer due to not understanding the math behind elliptic curves, or did you miss my repeated use of phrases like "the vast majority of software engineers" rather than som…

I'm certainly not saying you're not qualified to be a software engineer.
Post reply on HN