4 ms·
How does this compare to the work done by the Netherlands group (Hulsing/Zimmermann, etc al) [1] and the Kudeldki group from Switzerland (Raynal/Genet/Romailler
by chaxor 4y ago
How does this compare to the work done by the Netherlands group (Hulsing/Zimmermann, etc al) [1] and the Kudeldki group from Switzerland (Raynal/Genet/Romailler) [2]?
It's nice to see someone making this more available. I had thought about trying to push the pq-wg implementation from Kudelski group to wg or trying it out, but I never had the time. Rust implementation seems to be an improvement of implementation, but I don't know about the underlying proofs.
[1] https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/379.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/379.pdf
[2] https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Presentations/pq-wireguard-we-did-it-again/images-media/session-5-raynal-pq-wireguard.pdf https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Presentations/pq-wireguard-...
[3] https://github.com/kudelskisecurity/pq-wireguard https://github.com/kudelskisecurity/pq-wireguard
- sevenoftwelve 4y agoWe are based on the work of Hülsing, Ning, Zimmermann, Weber and Schwabe and in contact with the group. I havn't heard about kuedlki; the slides seem to refer to a reimplementation of the 2020 paper and the go implementation has been stale for two years. They also seem to use a tweaked krystals implementation which I would not trust. The link to the blog post they refer to dis dead. The Rosenpass protocol builds on the 2020 paper but also adds security against state disruption attacks (CVE-2021-46873). The implementation is actively maintained, written un Rust not in go. We use Classic McEliece and Kyber from the OQS library.