Java Source For Asymmetric Key Ciphers

Discussion in 'Java' started by Luc The Perverse, Jan 16, 2006.

  1. Hi - I'm looking for HFE and NTRU java source code.

    I don't want to pay for these libraries, because I'm not going to make a
    product with them, I only want to read through the algorithms and "play"
    with them. I have trouble understanding the algorithm by reading a pper,
    and have a better chance of understanding if reading code.

    Are they available anywhere for free?

    --
    LTP

    :)
     
    Luc The Perverse, Jan 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Luc The Perverse

    IchBin Guest

    Luc The Perverse wrote:
    > Hi - I'm looking for HFE and NTRU java source code.
    >
    > I don't want to pay for these libraries, because I'm not going to make a
    > product with them, I only want to read through the algorithms and "play"
    > with them. I have trouble understanding the algorithm by reading a pper,
    > and have a better chance of understanding if reading code.
    >
    > Are they available anywhere for free?
    >


    http://java.sun.com/developer/JDCTechTips/2004/tt0116.html
    --

    Thanks in Advance...
    IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
    http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
    __________________________________________________________________________

    'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
    -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)
     
    IchBin, Jan 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "IchBin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Luc The Perverse wrote:
    >> Hi - I'm looking for HFE and NTRU java source code.
    >>
    >> I don't want to pay for these libraries, because I'm not going to make a
    >> product with them, I only want to read through the algorithms and "play"
    >> with them. I have trouble understanding the algorithm by reading a pper,
    >> and have a better chance of understanding if reading code.
    >>
    >> Are they available anywhere for free?
    >>

    >
    > http://java.sun.com/developer/JDCTechTips/2004/tt0116.html


    :)

    I probably should use RSA if I have no real need to keep the data secure.

    --
    LTP

    :)
     
    Luc The Perverse, Jan 16, 2006
    #3
  4. On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:39:38 -0700, "Luc The Perverse"
    <> wrote:

    >Hi - I'm looking for HFE and NTRU java source code.
    >
    >I don't want to pay for these libraries, because I'm not going to make a
    >product with them, I only want to read through the algorithms and "play"
    >with them. I have trouble understanding the algorithm by reading a pper,
    >and have a better chance of understanding if reading code.
    >
    >Are they available anywhere for free?


    anywhere...don't know but had fun searching

    NTRU java
    http://bass.gmu.edu/courses/ECE543/project/reports_2001/dsouza.pdf
    http://bass.gmu.edu/courses/ECE543/project/specs-F01/DsouzaThomson.PDF

    Apparently NTRU code was not available 2001 so they/ Rodney wrote an
    own implementation

    Now, where is Rodney... and his code :) Ok Quick googliing find out
    what is true...

    Possible address 1/2005
    rodney.dsouza AT THE gmail.com

    News posts IP (202.163.119.98) says he posted to Google group Windows
    XP on 1/2005 from Pakistan Lahore, Punjab
    http://groups.google.fi/group/helpwinxp/msg/9664c6184ae15a56?dmode=source&hl=fi

    <OT>
    In that case the DNS tracer is not mistaking...Hopefully he managed to
    avoid being killed in those latest made by USA conducted war-crimes.
    (I refer to bombing of a Pakistani village which left 18 civilians
    death for no reason. It is interesting to notice that countries are
    allowed to try to use large bombs in other countries in order to try
    to catch criminals. Let's see that policy allows Russians to launch
    cruise missiles to London suburbs in order to 'get' Chechen
    politicians/terrorists. In addition that policy would suggest it is ok
    for the China to try place a car bomb on a street within the USA, in
    order the get their criminals e.g. Falun gong founder, damn Chinese
    always trying to kill my religious leaders :)
    </OT>

    Right address was in 2001

    (Remove extra-adjective)

    Probably would not hurt to try also

    Active 2001 ->?
    dsouza AND
    rodney_dsouza AND
    rodney.dsouza AT THE veridian.com

    In desperation Who knows maybe still
    dsouza AT THE mrj.com WORKS


    mars 2005 lists Rodney D'Souza
    as mechanical coordinator at Arabian Construction Co's service in
    Qatar
    but that is propably a not the NTRU Rodney, or has managed to abandon
    computers ?:)


    Consider whether to ask if Rodney can make the code publicly available
    (public domain).

    Was fun...sorry no time for better un-intelligence


    Juuso Hukkanen
    (to reply by e-mail set addresses month and year to correct)
     
    Juuso Hukkanen, Jan 16, 2006
    #4
  5. "Juuso Hukkanen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 13:39:38 -0700, "Luc The Perverse"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Hi - I'm looking for HFE and NTRU java source code.
    >>
    >>I don't want to pay for these libraries, because I'm not going to make a
    >>product with them, I only want to read through the algorithms and "play"
    >>with them. I have trouble understanding the algorithm by reading a pper,
    >>and have a better chance of understanding if reading code.
    >>
    >>Are they available anywhere for free?

    >
    > anywhere...don't know but had fun searching


    Don't take this the wrong way - but that seems like a lot of work - and I
    don't even know who this guy is.

    My current quest is to find a song "Pallas Athena" by Jay Bolton from a 1996
    movie which never released its sound track. I am calling the musicians
    guild (or something) tommorrow and have a few studio phone numbers . . .
    Only one quest at a time please! I'm beginning to think the man and the
    song don't exist - they are just myths.

    --
    LTP

    :)
     
    Luc The Perverse, Jan 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Luc The Perverse

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Luc The Perverse" <> writes:
    > My current quest is to find a song "Pallas Athena" by Jay Bolton from a 1996
    > movie which never released its sound track. I am calling the musicians
    > guild (or something) tommorrow and have a few studio phone numbers . . .
    > Only one quest at a time please! I'm beginning to think the man and the
    > song don't exist - they are just myths.
    > :)


    http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093407/

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118904/fullcredits

    http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/macon_county_jail/dvd.php
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2006
    #6
  7. "Paul Rubin" <http://> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Luc The Perverse" <> writes:
    >> My current quest is to find a song "Pallas Athena" by Jay Bolton from a
    >> 1996
    >> movie which never released its sound track. I am calling the musicians
    >> guild (or something) tommorrow and have a few studio phone numbers . . .
    >> Only one quest at a time please! I'm beginning to think the man and the
    >> song don't exist - they are just myths.
    >> :)

    >
    > http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0093407/
    >
    > http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118904/fullcredits
    >
    > http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/macon_county_jail/dvd.php


    Ah some familiar URLs!

    One of the first things I did was sign up for a pro trial account of imdb ;)
    That is how I got the name of the composer and the number to the studio.

    Thanks for trying though.

    Call me strange for not wanting to watch a girl get raped every time I want
    to hear the song - it just distracts somehow, but as thus far this has been
    my only experience with it, perhaps I should be thankful. **lunacy
    emerging . . . ** MUST HAVE SONG!!!! AGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH

    I didn't mean to get so sidetracked though - we're we talking about
    asymmetric ciphers?

    --
    LTP

    :)
     
    Luc The Perverse, Jan 17, 2006
    #7
  8. Luc The Perverse

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Luc The Perverse" <> writes:
    > Call me strange for not wanting to watch a girl get raped every time I want
    > to hear the song - it just distracts somehow, but as thus far this has been
    > my only experience with it, perhaps I should be thankful. **lunacy
    > emerging . . . ** MUST HAVE SONG!!!! AGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHH


    I think the idea is get the DVD and upload the audio of the song to
    your vorbis player or whatever.

    > I didn't mean to get so sidetracked though - we're we talking about
    > asymmetric ciphers?


    Ehh.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2006
    #8
  9. Luc The Perverse

    Guest

    You may find the tutorials on the NTRU website helpful --
    http://www.ntru.com/cryptolab is the place to start.

    Note that we encourage people to develop and play with the algorithms
    themselves, but you may not distribute your implementation without a
    license from NTRU.

    ================================

    William Whyte,
    CTO, NTRU Cryptosystems
     
    , Jan 17, 2006
    #9
  10. Luc The Perverse

    Tom St Denis Guest

    wrote:
    > You may find the tutorials on the NTRU website helpful --
    > http://www.ntru.com/cryptolab is the place to start.
    >
    > Note that we encourage people to develop and play with the algorithms
    > themselves, but you may not distribute your implementation without a
    > license from NTRU.


    With that final note how many people use NTRU versus says RSA-PKCS or
    ECC-X9.6X? :)

    Patents may make business sense but all they do is take a possibly
    valid technology and make it moot. By time NTRU is available for the
    public domain it'll be 2015 or so. At which point "smart cards" will
    be ARM platforms [or other 32-bit platform] and ECC with prime curves
    will be more than just fine in software, etc...

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jan 17, 2006
    #10
  11. Luc The Perverse

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > By time NTRU is available for the public domain it'll be 2015 or so.
    > At which point "smart cards" will be ARM platforms [or other 32-bit
    > platform] and ECC with prime curves will be more than just fine in
    > software, etc...


    Nah, smart cards will never be more powerful than they need to be. In
    2015 there might be 32-bit smart cards that cost the same 2 or 3
    dollars that today's 8-bit smart cards cost, but there will also be
    8-bit cards like today's, except they will cost 10 cents instead of 2
    or 3 dollars. If you're shipping millions (maybe even billions) of
    cards, a public key algorithm that can run on a 10 cent card instead
    of needing a 2 or 3 dollar card is extremely worthwhile.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2006
    #11
  12. Luc The Perverse

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > > By time NTRU is available for the public domain it'll be 2015 or so.
    > > At which point "smart cards" will be ARM platforms [or other 32-bit
    > > platform] and ECC with prime curves will be more than just fine in
    > > software, etc...

    >
    > Nah, smart cards will never be more powerful than they need to be. In
    > 2015 there might be 32-bit smart cards that cost the same 2 or 3
    > dollars that today's 8-bit smart cards cost, but there will also be
    > 8-bit cards like today's, except they will cost 10 cents instead of 2
    > or 3 dollars. If you're shipping millions (maybe even billions) of
    > cards, a public key algorithm that can run on a 10 cent card instead
    > of needing a 2 or 3 dollar card is extremely worthwhile.


    Provided they're still making them. It may cost 3 cents to make an
    8051 but if nobody will license/and/or/use them ... what's the point?

    Also I imagine in the next 9 years we'll see more capable RISC
    processors ending up on opencores.org. There are already a few there
    now.

    So you can use the DW8051 that comes with your cell library ... or
    fetch a 32-bit 5-stage MIPS/Mhz processor off opencores and use it for
    free as well... etc. ARM processors are already highly area efficient
    and a hell of a lot more efficient in terms of mips/watt than an 8051
    or 6805. I mean you'd have to clock an ARM down around <100Khz to
    match the throughput of operations of an 8051.

    Point is in the next decade things will only get better. Making the
    "desire" to use lower efficiency 8-bit micros even lower and lower.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jan 17, 2006
    #12
  13. Luc The Perverse

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > So you can use the DW8051 that comes with your cell library ... or
    > fetch a 32-bit 5-stage MIPS/Mhz processor off opencores and use it for
    > free as well... etc. ARM processors are already highly area efficient
    > and a hell of a lot more efficient in terms of mips/watt than an 8051
    > or 6805. I mean you'd have to clock an ARM down around <100Khz to
    > match the throughput of operations of an 8051.


    I think power efficiency isn't a big issue for smart cards. If you
    offer today's smart card buyer a choice between 50% power savings or
    2% cost savings, he'll take the 2% cost savings without hesitating for
    an instant. Question is, how many gates (chip area) does an ARM need
    compared with the 8 bitter?

    > Point is in the next decade things will only get better. Making the
    > "desire" to use lower efficiency 8-bit micros even lower and lower.


    The desire to pay as little as possible for any piece of functionality
    is as old as history and will always be present.
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2006
    #13
  14. Luc The Perverse

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > > So you can use the DW8051 that comes with your cell library ... or
    > > fetch a 32-bit 5-stage MIPS/Mhz processor off opencores and use it for
    > > free as well... etc. ARM processors are already highly area efficient
    > > and a hell of a lot more efficient in terms of mips/watt than an 8051
    > > or 6805. I mean you'd have to clock an ARM down around <100Khz to
    > > match the throughput of operations of an 8051.

    >
    > I think power efficiency isn't a big issue for smart cards. If you
    > offer today's smart card buyer a choice between 50% power savings or
    > 2% cost savings, he'll take the 2% cost savings without hesitating for
    > an instant. Question is, how many gates (chip area) does an ARM need
    > compared with the 8 bitter?


    About 1 or 2 mm^2 in 130nm technology.

    10 years from now in 65 or 45nm [when it becomes common for the fabs]
    this will be moot.

    But you missed the point. Custom RISC processors will likely be
    available to the public [e.g. LGPL or similar license] and it won't
    make sense to use the free DW51 when a free RISC core is available that
    lets you do so much more.

    > > Point is in the next decade things will only get better. Making the
    > > "desire" to use lower efficiency 8-bit micros even lower and lower.

    >
    > The desire to pay as little as possible for any piece of functionality
    > is as old as history and will always be present.


    They also compromise. Why use P-256 it's slow on my 16-bit MCU...
    let's use P-160 or lower! it'll be fast enough!

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jan 17, 2006
    #14
  15. Luc The Perverse

    Paul Rubin Guest

    "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > About 1 or 2 mm^2 in 130nm technology.
    >
    > 10 years from now in 65 or 45nm [when it becomes common for the fabs]
    > this will be moot.


    How can you say it will be moot? What smart cards are made in 130nm
    today? Why would anyone use a 130nm process if they can use 3 microns
    for much less cost?

    > But you missed the point. Custom RISC processors will likely be
    > available to the public [e.g. LGPL or similar license] and it won't
    > make sense to use the free DW51 when a free RISC core is available that
    > lets you do so much more.


    Sure, there will be high end applications that need a 32 bit card but
    the most common applications will still be stuff like SIM phone cards,
    that just hold a few account numbers and keys. Right now I doubt most
    of them can even do public key operations. Public key may become
    economically feasible sometime, but remember these things are made by
    the billions, so they'll still want to use 8-bit cards if they can.
    The difference between a 27 cent, 8-bit card and a 28 cent, 32-bit
    card is megabucks in the bank.

    > They also compromise. Why use P-256 it's slow on my 16-bit MCU...
    > let's use P-160 or lower! it'll be fast enough!


    I think they're using closer to p-120. Since they're also using
    single-DES....
     
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2006
    #15
  16. Luc The Perverse

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Paul Rubin wrote:
    > "Tom St Denis" <> writes:
    > > About 1 or 2 mm^2 in 130nm technology.
    > >
    > > 10 years from now in 65 or 45nm [when it becomes common for the fabs]
    > > this will be moot.

    >
    > How can you say it will be moot? What smart cards are made in 130nm
    > today? Why would anyone use a 130nm process if they can use 3 microns
    > for much less cost?


    Well the two biggest reasons why full blown processors aren't used.

    1. License cost for the cpu
    2. Area it requires would require package changes [e.g. larger].

    I just checked over opencores.org and it's quite slim pickings. There
    are a few MIPS designs but no PPC like designs or ARM...

    That said, that can all change in 10 years. So license issues are
    moot.

    Now with a process that would take [say] 2mm^2 now ... in 65nm will be
    much smaller thus requiring no package changes [at least externally].

    It isn't like credit card sized smart cards will be getting smaller.

    > > But you missed the point. Custom RISC processors will likely be
    > > available to the public [e.g. LGPL or similar license] and it won't
    > > make sense to use the free DW51 when a free RISC core is available that
    > > lets you do so much more.

    >
    > Sure, there will be high end applications that need a 32 bit card but
    > the most common applications will still be stuff like SIM phone cards,
    > that just hold a few account numbers and keys. Right now I doubt most
    > of them can even do public key operations. Public key may become
    > economically feasible sometime, but remember these things are made by
    > the billions, so they'll still want to use 8-bit cards if they can.
    > The difference between a 27 cent, 8-bit card and a 28 cent, 32-bit
    > card is megabucks in the bank.


    Again, that's today. Even now things are moving to ARM despite the
    license costs. Most people in the BT SIG are ARM users. So you'd see
    things like mice and keyboards with enough power to do ECC P-192 mults
    in 1M cycles!!!

    An ARM license can run you usually a few dollars per core. Which slows
    adoption rates a bit, specially for smart cards. But there clearly is
    demand for the power. Just need a public domain core to feed the
    engineers.

    I really don't see cost being an issue once a 32-bit public domain core
    is out there. Heck if I was an EE I'd probably do it myself just to
    stir shit up. But so far I'm 4 years of school and about another 4
    years of experience too short to do that :)

    > > They also compromise. Why use P-256 it's slow on my 16-bit MCU...
    > > let's use P-160 or lower! it'll be fast enough!

    >
    > I think they're using closer to p-120. Since they're also using
    > single-DES....


    My point exactly.

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jan 17, 2006
    #16
  17. Luc The Perverse

    Guest

    > Patents may make business sense but all they do is take a possibly
    > valid technology and make it moot.


    If the second part is true, then they don't make business sense...

    .... but there are many factors involved in technology choices.
    Licensing terms are only one, and there are plenty of examples
    of customers choosing (for example) to pay for Windows rather
    than install Linux themselves. Closer to home, remember that
    the NSA recently paid Certicom $25 million for a subset of their
    ECC patents. I understand that patents are annoying to the
    developer who wants to use the patented technology, but I don't
    think you can argue (as you seem to be trying to do here) that
    they're inherently self-defeating.

    William
     
    , Jan 20, 2006
    #17
  18. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >> Patents may make business sense but all they do is take a possibly
    >> valid technology and make it moot.

    >
    > If the second part is true, then they don't make business sense...
    >
    > ... but there are many factors involved in technology choices.
    > Licensing terms are only one, and there are plenty of examples
    > of customers choosing (for example) to pay for Windows rather
    > than install Linux themselves. Closer to home, remember that
    > the NSA recently paid Certicom $25 million for a subset of their
    > ECC patents. I understand that patents are annoying to the
    > developer who wants to use the patented technology, but I don't
    > think you can argue (as you seem to be trying to do here) that
    > they're inherently self-defeating.
    >
    > William
    >


    That's odd - why did they do that? Were they afraid of them? Wanted to use
    them theirselves?

    --
    LTP

    :)
     
    Luc The Perverse, Jan 20, 2006
    #18
  19. Luc The Perverse

    Tom St Denis Guest

    wrote:
    > > Patents may make business sense but all they do is take a possibly
    > > valid technology and make it moot.

    >
    > If the second part is true, then they don't make business sense...


    Business sense != common sense.

    It makes perfect "business sense" for Intel and Apple to partner. It
    makes no common sense to do so [variety == better chance of
    survivability].

    > ... but there are many factors involved in technology choices.
    > Licensing terms are only one, and there are plenty of examples
    > of customers choosing (for example) to pay for Windows rather
    > than install Linux themselves. Closer to home, remember that
    > the NSA recently paid Certicom $25 million for a subset of their
    > ECC patents. I understand that patents are annoying to the
    > developer who wants to use the patented technology, but I don't
    > think you can argue (as you seem to be trying to do here) that
    > they're inherently self-defeating.


    I don't know what the NSA "licensed". ECC over prime fields is not
    patented. Things like MQV are but who gives two shits? Just use DH
    with EC-DSA and you're all set, etc...

    I've asked a lot of people what they know of the Certicom patents and
    the answer I keep getting is "I don't know". And it's just that, all
    hype and little substance.

    For instance, I implemented prime curves in LTC for the longest while.
    My software is used all over. I have yet to hear from Certicom. Is
    that because I'm still to obscure or that they can't really do shit
    all?

    Patenting a PK algorithm is similar to patenting a block cipher. Other
    choices are available and there isn't enough drive.

    Now if you had a patent on fast ECC math you'd stand more chance
    because at least people would still be within the realm of standards.
    If I go out and license NTRU which ISO, IEEE, ANSI or FIPS standards am
    I adhering to?

    And this has nothing to do with technical merits. Do I care that NTRU
    is faster? or more secure or more suitable for my platform? Not
    really. If I'm to pick any protocols they have to be something that I
    can tell my clients that I'm following a spec.

    I *am* for new tech though. Don't think I'm a traveling NIST monkey or
    something. If you recall I emailed NTRU [I think you replied] a long
    while back about me adding NTRU to the library. You said no. I said
    "ok bye bye" and haven't looked back since. I'm sure others are the
    same.

    While you will score enough contracts to stay in business you won't
    have a lasting meaningful impact since nobody will inherit from your
    work. Say Gizmo 1000 uses NTRU then gets bought up by another company.
    Gizmo 2000 has more cpu or wants to be FIPS compatible. NTRU gone.

    Or more like say Gizmo 1000 uses NTRU and Gizma 1500 uses something
    else, then they merge... etc, etc, etc.

    Point is the patents on NTRU basically make it unattractive for most
    educated folk and really limit it's exposure. Which is a shame since
    it's a cool protocol...

    /rant

    Tom
     
    Tom St Denis, Jan 20, 2006
    #19
  20. Doesn't NTRU have (or had) security problems in the past? Their
    $100,000 challanges getting solved in record times and the complexity
    big-O formula starts getting closer and closer to N rather than N^2.

    I never bothered to research it (or even learn it, lattice
    reductions...) since it was patented and I spent my time learning
    something that had a chance of "making it".

    JLC

    In sci.crypt Tom St Denis <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    > > > Patents may make business sense but all they do is take a possibly
    > > > valid technology and make it moot.

    > >
    > > If the second part is true, then they don't make business sense...


    > Business sense != common sense.


    > It makes perfect "business sense" for Intel and Apple to partner. It
    > makes no common sense to do so [variety == better chance of
    > survivability].


    > > ... but there are many factors involved in technology choices.
    > > Licensing terms are only one, and there are plenty of examples
    > > of customers choosing (for example) to pay for Windows rather
    > > than install Linux themselves. Closer to home, remember that
    > > the NSA recently paid Certicom $25 million for a subset of their
    > > ECC patents. I understand that patents are annoying to the
    > > developer who wants to use the patented technology, but I don't
    > > think you can argue (as you seem to be trying to do here) that
    > > they're inherently self-defeating.


    > I don't know what the NSA "licensed". ECC over prime fields is not
    > patented. Things like MQV are but who gives two shits? Just use DH
    > with EC-DSA and you're all set, etc...


    > I've asked a lot of people what they know of the Certicom patents and
    > the answer I keep getting is "I don't know". And it's just that, all
    > hype and little substance.


    > For instance, I implemented prime curves in LTC for the longest while.
    > My software is used all over. I have yet to hear from Certicom. Is
    > that because I'm still to obscure or that they can't really do shit
    > all?


    > Patenting a PK algorithm is similar to patenting a block cipher. Other
    > choices are available and there isn't enough drive.


    > Now if you had a patent on fast ECC math you'd stand more chance
    > because at least people would still be within the realm of standards.
    > If I go out and license NTRU which ISO, IEEE, ANSI or FIPS standards am
    > I adhering to?


    > And this has nothing to do with technical merits. Do I care that NTRU
    > is faster? or more secure or more suitable for my platform? Not
    > really. If I'm to pick any protocols they have to be something that I
    > can tell my clients that I'm following a spec.


    > I *am* for new tech though. Don't think I'm a traveling NIST monkey or
    > something. If you recall I emailed NTRU [I think you replied] a long
    > while back about me adding NTRU to the library. You said no. I said
    > "ok bye bye" and haven't looked back since. I'm sure others are the
    > same.


    > While you will score enough contracts to stay in business you won't
    > have a lasting meaningful impact since nobody will inherit from your
    > work. Say Gizmo 1000 uses NTRU then gets bought up by another company.
    > Gizmo 2000 has more cpu or wants to be FIPS compatible. NTRU gone.


    > Or more like say Gizmo 1000 uses NTRU and Gizma 1500 uses something
    > else, then they merge... etc, etc, etc.


    > Point is the patents on NTRU basically make it unattractive for most
    > educated folk and really limit it's exposure. Which is a shame since
    > it's a cool protocol...


    > /rant


    > Tom



    --
     
    Jean-Luc Cooke, Jan 20, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. mattpryor
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,538
    mattpryor
    Apr 28, 2006
  2. Trevor Perrin

    block ciphers

    Trevor Perrin, Apr 20, 2004, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    478
    Ed Suominen
    Apr 20, 2004
  3. =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCle_Daniel?=

    int <-> str asymmetric

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sch=FCle_Daniel?=, Mar 16, 2006, in forum: Python
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    478
    Steven Bethard
    Mar 16, 2006
  4. pintu

    Asymmetric Encryption

    pintu, Jan 15, 2007, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    461
    Karl Seguin [MVP]
    Jan 16, 2007
  5. dfa_geko
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    394
    dfa_geko
    Apr 6, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page