Content deleted Content added
→Not a typo. 521, not 512.: new section |
→source for "ECC allows smaller key sizes"?: new section |
||
Line 263:
Should there be a footnote about that 521 not being a typo? It really is 521 (see [https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/62083/why-would-diffie-hellman-group-21-be-521-bits-rather-than-512] among many, many sources) but it really looks like someone mis-typed "512". [[Special:Contributions/76.216.220.191|76.216.220.191]] ([[User talk:76.216.220.191|talk]]) 04:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
== source for "ECC allows smaller key sizes"? ==
I was interested in the claim that:
> ECC allows smaller keys compared to non-EC cryptography (based on plain [[Finite field|Galois fields]]) to provide equivalent security.
and checked the citation at https://cryptome.org/2016/01/CNSA-Suite-and-Quantum-Computing-FAQ.pdf. However, I wasn't able to find any discussion of relative key sizes for elliptic vs non-elliptic algorithms, except for the obliquely related:
> Because of these legacy systems and because there is an eventual need to move to quantum resistant public key algorithms, NSA has decided that it may be more cost effective for some NSS to continue to use RSA and Diffie-Hellman with larger key sizes until the new quantum resistant public key algorithms are ready.
'''Could someone please identify a page number or other more precise citation for this comparison of EC to non-EC cryptographic algorithms?
'''
Separately, this sentence also seems to equate "non-EC cryptography" with "Galois fields", although [[Finite_field#Applications]] seems to indicate that elliptic curves are themselves defined over Galois fields. I'm not sure how best to edit that. [[User:Lcdrovers|Lcdrovers]] ([[User talk:Lcdrovers|talk]]) 03:17, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
| |||