[Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B?

[Ron Teitelbaum]

This is interesting too:
http://www.ietf.org/ietf/IPR/certicom-ipr-rfc-3446.pdf 

This appears to be related to TLS.

Ron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ron
> Teitelbaum
> Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:44 PM
> To: 'Cerebus'; 'Cryptography Team Development List'
> Subject: RE: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
> 
> What has Sun contributed to OpenSSL?  I guess my question is this: If
> there
> are version of ECC that are developed and patented by Sun that have been
> given to the OS communities, either directly or through the OpenSSL
> license
> then can we use their implementation?
> 
> I wouldn't want to post any code that is not open source in our library
> which would includes IDEA, MDC2 and RC5.
> 
> If we find that ECC is only available to government users then I suggest
> we
> do not include it in our repository, the risk would be too great.
> 
> What we need to understand is what ECC technology is currently Open Source
> and can we do our own implementation and distribute it.
> 
> Ron
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cerebus [mailto:cerebus2 at gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:36 PM
> > To: Ron at usmedrec.com; Cryptography Team Development List
> > Subject: Re: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
> >
> > Certicom also holds patents on a number of ECC things (like almost all
> > of ECMQV and things like point compression).  NSA has licensed
> > Certicom's ECC patents en masse for anything done on US Gov't
> > contract.
> >
> > There's a patent letter on the SECG website:
> >
> > http://www.secg.org/
> >
> > Part of the problem right now is that ECC work is a bit divided, which
> > has made standardization a bit of a pain.
> >
> > -- Tim
> >
> > On 11/24/06, Ron Teitelbaum <Ron at usmedrec.com> wrote:
> > > Forgot the link:
> > > http://www.sun.com/emrkt/innercircle/newsletter/0304cto.html
> > >
> > > Ron
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Ron Teitelbaum [mailto:Ron at USMedRec.com]
> > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:25 PM
> > > > To: 'Cryptography Team Development List'
> > > > Subject: RE: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure I understand this since SUN released ECC to the public
> > > > domain.  I'll get an opinion on it:
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > > > [mailto:cryptography-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf
> > Of
> > > > > Matthew S. Hamrick
> > > > > Sent: Friday, November 24, 2006 2:07 PM
> > > > > To: Cryptography Team Development List
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Cryptography Team] ECC and/or NSA Suite B?
> > > > >
> > > > > Keep in mind, however, that products violate patent restrictions,
> > not
> > > > > implementations. Otherwise OpenSSL would not be able to include
> > IDEA,
> > > > > MDC2 or RC5.
> > > > >
> > > > > With all the discussion of FIPS 140, I had assumed that most
> > everyone
> > > > > on the list is working on government contracts. Otherwise, why
> > bother
> > > > > with it?
> > > > >
> > > > > The NSA negotiated a blanket US Federal Government deal for
> > > > > Certicom's patent portfolio for use in ECDSA, ECDH and ECMQV.
> So...
> > > > > if you're a federal government agency, you get to use these
> > > > > algorithms without having to pay Certicom anything extra. So... if
> > > > > part of what you're hoping to do is to create an ECC
> implementation
> > > > > that can be used by a federal agency, then you can do so without
> > fear
> > > > > of the Certicom lawyers. Now... the moment the implementation gets
> > > > > used in a commercial product, then you've got issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Nov 23, 2006, at 10:24 PM, Cerebus wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Is anyone working on Suite B stuff?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rijndael is there, but it probably should be subclassed as AES
> > proper
> > > > > > if only to lock down the blocksize to 128 bits and the keysize
> to
> > the
> > > > > > allowed 128 & 256 bits.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > SHA256 is there, but it doesn't extent to cover the rest of the
> > SHA2
> > > > > > family (SHA384 and SHA512).  SHA384 is part of Suite B.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is anyone working on ECDSA, ECDH & ECMQV?  (Well, given that
> ECMQV
> > is
> > > > > > more heavily patent-encumbered in the US, I can understand if
> it's
> > > > > > left by the wayside).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If not I might take a crack at a couple of pieces.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -- Tim
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Cryptography mailing list
> > > > > > Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/
> > > > > > cryptography
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Cryptography mailing list
> > > > > Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-
> > bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Cryptography mailing list
> > > Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-
> bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Cryptography mailing list
> Cryptography at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cryptography