Re: [Cfrg] DNSSEC considering adopting GOST R 34.10-2001 and GOST R 34.11-94

[David McGrew <mcgrew at cisco.com>]

Hi Olafur,

some other important questions: how widely reviewed is that  
algorithm?  What are the claimed security levels?   Where is guidance  
on how to use the algorithm?

I cannot find any references to it in the peer-reviewed literature.    
Perhaps I am not using the right keyword or something.

If anyone on the CFRG list has reviewed the algorithm, it would be  
great if we could hear from them.

best,

David


On Apr 22, 2009, at 8:13 AM, Ólafur Guðmundsson /DNSEXT chair wrote:

> This message is a request for information.
> In an old CFRG thread
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/cfrg/current/msg01170.html
> I asked for some guidance on defining ECC algorithms for DNSSEC.
>
> We now have the first concrete proposal for an ECC algorithm,
>        GOST R 34.10-2001 a ECC public key algorithm
>        GOST R 34.11-94  a hash algorithm
> preliminary ID: (more politics than technical)
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dolmatov-dnsext-dnssec-gost-00.txt
>
>
> Both algorithms have been added to at least one IETF protocol  
> (RFC4490).
> The DNS community is inclined to seriously consider the adoption of  
> these
> algorithms, but we are not crypto experts.
>
> Question #1: Is there a cryptographic reason why GOST R 34.10-2001
> should NOT be considered for adoption by DNS?
>
>
> Previously I have received suggestions for following ECC curves:
>        P-256, P-384 and Curve25519.
>
> Question #2: Is there a cryptographic reason why GOST R 34.11-94
> should NOT be considered for adoption by DNS?
>
>        thanks
>        Olafur
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cfrg mailing list
> Cfrg at irtf.org
> http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg