Skip to content

Comment on RSA-260 Factorizedparent

Comments

I'd say ECDSA is even worse, because almost anything you get even slightly wrong with Schnorr schemes ends up leaking the private key. With RSA OTOH you just use a decent library and something like encode-and-compare for signing and you're done. I'm much more nervous about something using ECDSA than RSA once I've had a look at the code and verified that it's at least somewhat competently written.

(EC)DSA is indeed fiddly enough that you wonder if it was an NSA operation in the first place. EdDSA on the other hand seems ok.

EdDSA is also quite a mess, see e.g. https://hdevalence.ca/blog/2020-10-04-its-25519am/. Almost no two implementations that aren't the same code base can agree on what is and isn't a valid signature. ECDSA isn't nearly as bad, there's only two forms of the same signature possible and implementations seem to generate either of the two at random (this makes for a great subliminal channel to leak the private key if you don't have the source code). With RSA PKCS #1 (but not PSS) there's one and only one form for a signature.

So oddly enough the supposedly really bad insecure terrible etc PKCS #1 RSA is the only one where the signature is totally unambiguous.

AboutSource Built by g1lg1l

Hackerly is an independent reader for Hacker News, built on the public HN API. Not affiliated with Y Combinator.