[Cryptography] Secure parallel hash, with constant time update

Jerry Leichter leichter at lrw.com
Mon Oct 13 17:08:09 EDT 2014

On Oct 13, 2014, at 4:53 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek at gmail.com> wrote:
> Can I take it as a good sign than no one offered any attacks or found any weaknesses so far? :-)
You can take it as a sign that people aren't very interested.

I lost interest after an exchange we had that went:  "It's secure because of the discrete log problem.  But it violates its own basic security requirements when it produces a 0 result!  Oh, that's so unlikely - why worry about it?"  At that point, we left the realm of mathematics and proofs for someplace else where I, for one prefer not to go.

> While I am often wrong, I claim it is secure based on the difficulty of the discrete log problem.  What would be the next natural step for this algorithm?  It seems the usual way is to write a paper...
Best of luck.

This is my last message on this subject.
                                                        -- Jerry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4813 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/attachments/20141013/9cf2ad19/attachment.bin>

More information about the cryptography mailing list