On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 00:01:29 +0000 isis agora lovecruft <isis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > The bad news is that, work on it is on going, and it does not make a > > good GSOC project because, the bulk of the implementation work will > > likely happen before the summer. > > It will? Probably? If people take what I say out of context, or as a promise of anything, they may end up disappointed, but I don't really care. > > > 2. Implement the NewHope-Simple algorithm[1] because we'll not be > > > able to use the Vanilla NewHope as it is protected by some > > > patents. I wasn't able to find any implementation of NewHope > > > Simple. So can the Vanilla NewHope Implementation be tweaked to > > > convert it into NewHope Simple? Or would we have to write it from > > > ground up? I don't know about the patent laws regarding it. > > > > I haven't talked to Peter in a while (and will ask him after I send > > this), but I am not aware of any patent claims against the vanilla > > NewHope algorithm (and the NewHope-Simple paper does not mention > > this at all either). > > Sorry, I'm being deliberately vague about this because I don't want > to feed the patent trolls or provide a weapon to anyone who wants to > fight against good crypto, but the patent exists, and it affects > nearly all lattice-based handshakes. NewHope simple is not affected. I spoke with some people and got filled in. I'm not going to look at the claim, because that's something for a legal department somewhere to sort out, and not my problem. Since the Simple variant is easier for others to implement, and sidesteps the random asshats issue, I don't think this is a big deal anyway. Regards, -- Yawning Angel
Attachment:
pgpWOcY3sWagE.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev