Follow

@tedu any idea why OpenBSD didn't switch to the ref10 implementation of Ed25519? It's supposed to be an order of magnitude faster.

@mike I imagine if it was maintainable (readable, tractable codebase with receptive-to-patches upstream), secure, permissively licensed *and* faster it might have been utilized instead. @tedu

@aag @tedu What patches are you going to send against a reference implementation by the authors of the algorithm? Everything that you said about ref10 applies to the current code (as it's also done by the same people).

@mike I think it just slipped by? I took the code for signify from ssh. Maybe ref10 didn't exist at the time? I don't think anybody is tracking upstream. Doesn't help that it's unclear where upstream really is.

@tedu SSH code comes from the supercop as well.

@tedu I thought there might have been a reason along the lines of "DJB wrote me to mention that the ref10 code is still undergoing review, and won’t be recommended for actual use for another couple of weeks.": blog.mozilla.org/warner/2012/0

But right now it's used in libsodium.

@mike no, nothing like that. I don't know of any problems. I think it's just nobody was looking for it.
Sign in to participate in the conversation
x0r.be

Exclusive or something