[lkml]   [2019]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/6] Add Hygon SEV support
On 16/04/19 08:58, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote:
>>> Besides that, they are in heavy practical use in mainland China,
>>> usually as direct replacements for SHA2-256 and AES in whatever
>>> protocol or use case you need: IPsec, TLS, WPA2, XTS for disk encryption,
>>> you name it.
>> How should that mean anything?
> Uhm ... no, the fact that something is actually *useful* to potentially
> a billion plus people doesn't mean anything ...

Useful does not mean secure, does it? PKZIP encryption was certainly
useful back in the day, but it was not secure.

>> I did educate myself a bit, but I'm not an expert in cryptography, so I
>> would like to be sure that these are not another Speck or DUAL-EC-DRBG.
> Innocent until proven guilty mean anything to you?

This is not a court of justice, it's a software project. For that
matter "certainty beyond reasonable doubt" is not a thing either in this

>> "SM2 is based on ECC(Elliptic Curve Cryptography), and uses a special
>> curve" is enough for me to see warning signs, at least without further
>> explanations,
> The specification is public (if you can read Chinese, anyway), so open to
> analysis. Either way, it's quite irrelevant to Chinese organisations that
> HAVE to use SM2. And anyone else can just decide NOT to use it, you don't
> even have to compile it into your kernel. It's called freedom.

"Freedom" didn't apply when Speck was proposed for inclusion in Linux,
and I would like to make sure I don't make a mistake when adding crypto
interfaces. If SM2/3/4 were broken, I couldn't care less if someone HAS
to use them, they can patch their kernel. But if they're not then I
appreciate that you wrote to correct me, it's helpful. Please
understand that 99% of the community has not ever heard of anything but
SHA-{1,2,3}, ECDSA, Ed25519, AES. If somebody comes up with a patch
with "strange" crypto, it's up to them to say that they are secure---and
again, the key word is secure, not useful.


>> and so does the fact that the initial SM3 values were
>> changed from SHA-2 and AFAICT there is no public justification for
>> that.
> Actually, SM3 is an *improvement* on SHA-2, and there has been ample
> analysis done on that to, in fact, confirm it's (slightly) better.
> So there IS public justification. Don't shout if you don't know the
> facts.

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-04-16 10:10    [W:0.073 / U:2.552 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site