[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
- To: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: MQV?
- From: "Watson Ladd" <watsonbladd@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:58:12 -0400
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Delivery-date: Thu, 13 Apr 2006 19:58:17 -0400
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=XPVP0xSRqukzH2q8XwDtGrHzlunMYMlyStTUme4LrnAHfplRhWRMN2y6FOAvIHXPCKEXdfukwdj1uXkDZEoLLWtb6+e2d4Vp+rLWezMy7YAhTtayAh8KuHqeAopV7lmMVxNx+Wgg9hTqpZbSEOyQYeXIAPzQM2QHZboQ4wR/CzE=
- Reply-to: or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-or-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Could we make the route extension more efficient by using HMQV(hashed
Menese-Qu-Vanstone)? MQV is patented, but I don't know about HMQV.
This would 2/3 the load on servers when doing a negotiation(3
exponentations vs. 2 exponentiations). since most routes are
reletivly-short lived this would reduce load by a significant amount.
All results against it require leakage of the random nonces used.
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin