Re: [Cfrg] Defining inter operable ECC keys in for IETF protocols

["Hal Finney" <hal.finney at gmail.com>]

On 3/22/06, Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker at verisign.com> wrote:
> Would the recently proposed extended DSA with larger key sizes be a workable
> alternative?
>
> The key size is still large (does someone know how large a key has to be to
> give 2^128 equivalent security).

The new draft specifies two subgroup size choices for 2048 bit moduli:
224 and 256 bits. Or you can go to 3072 bit modulus also with a 256
bit subgroup. But I guess they think that a 2048 bit modulus isn't too
bad a match with a 256 bit subgroup, for 128 bit security.

http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/drafts/fips_186-3/Draft-FIPS-186-3%20_March2006.pdf

Hal

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg