2014
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-45611-8_17
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Kummer Strikes Back: New DH Speed Records

Abstract: Abstract. This paper introduces high-security constant-time variable-base-point Diffie-Hellman software using just 274593 Cortex-A8 cycles, 91460 Sandy Bridge cycles, 90896 Ivy Bridge cycles, or 72220 Haswell cycles. The only higher speed appearing in the literature for any of these platforms is a claim of 60000 Haswell cycles for unpublished software performing arithmetic on a binary elliptic curve.The new speeds rely on a synergy between (1) state-of-the-art formulas for genus-2 hyperelliptic curves and (2) … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
62
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 48 publications
(62 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
62
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In comparison with curvebased implementations on genus 2 curves or binary curves, we observe that our results are between 24%-26% faster than the genus 2 implementation by Bos et al [8], and between 19%-24% faster than the implementation by Oliveira et al [35] based on a binary GLS curve using the 2-GLV method 1 . Only the recent implementation by Bernstein et al [4], which uses the same genus 2 Kummer surface employed by Bos et al [8], is able to achieve a performance that is comparable to this work, with a result that is slightly slower on the Intel Ivy Bridge processor. In addition, the applicability of the Kummer surface is essentially restricted to ECDH; e.g., it cannot be used directly for signature schemes and its performance is poor in ECDHE when precomputations (via fixed-base scalar multiplication) can be exploited.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…In comparison with curvebased implementations on genus 2 curves or binary curves, we observe that our results are between 24%-26% faster than the genus 2 implementation by Bos et al [8], and between 19%-24% faster than the implementation by Oliveira et al [35] based on a binary GLS curve using the 2-GLV method 1 . Only the recent implementation by Bernstein et al [4], which uses the same genus 2 Kummer surface employed by Bos et al [8], is able to achieve a performance that is comparable to this work, with a result that is slightly slower on the Intel Ivy Bridge processor. In addition, the applicability of the Kummer surface is essentially restricted to ECDH; e.g., it cannot be used directly for signature schemes and its performance is poor in ECDHE when precomputations (via fixed-base scalar multiplication) can be exploited.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 54%
“…This paper addresses the scalability challenges that appear at higher security levels. Hyperelliptic-curve DH has also recently reached this performance bar for the Cortex-A8: the HECDH implementation in [4] is even faster than Curve25519. However, the performance benefits of hyperelliptic curves are specific to DH, as admitted in [4], while elliptic curves are easily adapted to other important applications such as signatures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hyperelliptic-curve DH has also recently reached this performance bar for the Cortex-A8: the HECDH implementation in [4] is even faster than Curve25519. However, the performance benefits of hyperelliptic curves are specific to DH, as admitted in [4], while elliptic curves are easily adapted to other important applications such as signatures. More importantly, the 128-bit hyperelliptic curve used in [4] came from a massive computation by Gaudry and Schost in [20], using more than 1000000 hours of CPU time.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations