Talk:Elliptic curve Diffie–Hellman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Cryptography / Computer science  (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (marked as Mid-importance).
 

It is not clear that the domain parameter n is the order of the group; however, this is the case. 18.244.3.159 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

ECDH and Protocol Security[edit]

The article states, "The protocol is secure because nothing is disclosed..." Unfortunately, nothing is authenticated, so its only secure against eavesdroppers (passive attackers). It will fail against active attackers (ie, Man in the Middle (MitM)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talkcontribs) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs section on vulnerabilities[edit]

Isn't this an encryption used by Tor? If so, it seems like this merits a much more detailed article.

Also, is it vulnerable to the attacks described on the elliptic curve article, or to other ones?

What is being done with Tor to mitigate the risks of having "magic constants" and recommended pseudo-random number generators supplied by US government agencies?

99.118.9.187 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Link [4] is broken[edit]

195.62.204.234 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Value of dG[edit]

The text says that, "Q = dG, that is, the result of adding G together d times)."

I'm not a cryptographer, but isn't dG the result of adding G together d-1 times? I mean, 2G = G + G, which is adding G together once. Or would it be better to say, "that is, the result of adding d copies of G together"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.43.78 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problematic wording[edit]

In the section "Key establishment protocol" a paragraph ends with:

"Each party must have the other party's public key (an exchange must occur)."

It is unclear whether this is a pre-condition or the goal. In order words the article does not clearly identify whether the goal of this process is to exchange these public keys or whether the parties must already have each other's keys in order to engage in the exchange.

Perhaps one can figure it out, but the current wording is needlessly opaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.92 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I've addressed it with this edit. —Quondum 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)