tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25
2
0
Issues 1.1k Wiki Activity

clarifications about hash-based digital sigs 

[Imported from Trac: page OneHundredYearCryptography, version 17]
davidsarah 2011-12-21 22:25:13 +00:00
parent 47035ce2a5
commit cf947995d1
1 changed files with 3 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

4
OneHundredYearCryptography.md

@ -31,9 +31,9 @@ David-Sarah has proposed to use hash-based digital signatures.
Zooko posted ["back of the envelope" performance constraints](https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2011-February/006133.html). Bottom-line: you get 30 million ARM instructions to implement one complete digital signature verification.
Julian Wälde has [posted an actual implementation](http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2011-March/006237.html) of hash-based digital signatures! Exciting fact: his implementation meets Zooko's performance criterion!
Julian Wälde has [posted an actual implementation](http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2011-March/006237.html) of (stateful) hash-based digital signatures! Exciting fact: his implementation meets Zooko's performance criterion!
Brian and David-Sarah wrote [a simulator]source:trunk/misc/simulators/hashbasedsig.py or two to explore performance trade-offs in hash-based signature parameters. The output of one run with the following parameters is this:
Brian and David-Sarah wrote [a simulator]source:trunk/misc/simulators/hashbasedsig.py or two to explore performance trade-offs in (stateless) hash-based signature parameters. The output of one run with the following parameters is this (note that the signing times include regeneration of per-message signing keys from a small long-term private key):
```
# range of hash output lengths
range_L_hash = [128]