5 ms·

Ed25519 and Curve25519 are not encumbered by any patents, see http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html and http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/so

by sdevlin 11y ago

Ed25519 and Curve25519 are not encumbered by any patents, see http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html and http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html. You should prefer state-of-the-art elliptic curve systems to RSA and finite field DH.

nickpsecurity 11y ago
I appreciate the update on the situation for those curves.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- kragen 11y ago
  It's not just those curves. Virtually all elliptic-curve cryptography is patent-free, as you would expect for a family of cryptosystems studied since 1986 based on centuries-old math. There are a few current patents, but they cover techniques almost nobody uses.
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    If it's patent free, why are people paying for it as I linked to? NSA paid for it and are specific that it applies to FIPS 140-2 solutions. Companies were paying Certicom for it. As far as a few years ago, an article gripes about how much Blackberry charges for it. Just weird that it doesn't apply to anything yet companies and governments were all paying for it. If something has changed, I'd like the definitive answer to come from legal experts (esp aforementioned companies' lawyers) who say the 100+ patents no longer apply to anything we use and they all stopped paying for ECC. Haven't seen it. I'll continue to warn people until (a) I see that contrary reports acknowledge the existence of 100+ patents that companies are actually paying for rather than falsely claim no patents exist and (b) show why all of them never applied or no longer apply to existing ECC schemes. Got a link to that?
    - ghshephard 11y ago
      People are paying for it because they get value out of what they are paying for. TCP/IP isn't patented, but companies will pay several million dollars for a TCP/IP stack for their embedded firmware. Don't conflate people's willingness to pay for a particular implementation (accompanying documentation, support, tools), with a legal requirement that they need to do so for the underlying technology.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        I didn't. I thought that, after much publicity and a lawsuit, they paid for patent licenses out of coercion rather than willingness. The usual reason. Maybe the patents don't apply to anything, NSA was just being generous by buying patent licenses for nothing, and everyone else was buying software licenses. As I asked above, I just want a solid reference showing this and that the 100+ patents don't apply to anything we use. So far, everyone wants me to take their word for it despite my references showing government and companies buying patent licenses. Weird. I'm thinking I should send a letter to Blackberry asking if ECC is covered by their patents or if everyone just wanted to pay for an implementation for various reasons. Might simplify this debate.
    - kragen 11y ago
      tptacek has already responded to your nonsense below at greater length than I have the patience for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9709692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9709692 FIPS 140-2 is not a cryptosystem standard; it covers the design of hardware security modules using a wide range of algorithms, the majority of which don't use ECC at all. The fact that you mention it at all (rather than, say, FIPS 186-2 Appendix 6) suggests that you have no idea what it is. Certicom (now part of BlackBerry) offers not just patent licenses but also software licenses. Several of the previously potentially relevant patents (mentioned in the link upthread) have expired within the last five years. I recommend you stop giving people advice on subjects where not only do you know nothing, but the things you think you know are false.
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
  - nickpsecurity 11y ago
    @ ghshephard Your comment implies they're only paying for an implementation. To be sure, do you have a link to a resource analyzing the patents on ECC and showing they don't apply to anything they (or we) use for ECC? That it's a moot issue in its entirety or mostly except for known cases? Otherwise, I'm going to guess that you're guessing like everyone else.
    - ghshephard 11y ago
      I'm not sure why you are responding to me here, but don't put words in my mouth. Your question was, "If it's patent free, why are people paying for it as I linked to?" - there are other reasons to purchase a technology than just the patent. Let me spin it another way, and put the ball back in your court. Not that this proves anything, but has anyone (recently) purchased a license for ECC patented technology, that wasn't a license for a certicom specific implementation? Seriously, someone who is an expert in this field (if not the expert), has already made a pretty clear statement here on patent problems wth Ed25519: http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html. As of 2015.06.11 "The authors have not been notified of any claims of patent problems wth Ed25519."
      - nickpsecurity 11y ago
        People only get hit with patent suits for commercial use that I'm aware of. They wouldn't be as it's all free and they don't monetize it. A commercial product using it is where the risk is. I'm assessing that risk. Anyway, thanks for the link as he covers a lot of key patents and some prior art to use.

by sdevlin 11y ago

nickpsecurity 11y ago

I appreciate the update on the situation for those curves.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
kragen 11y ago
It's not just those curves. Virtually all elliptic-curve cryptography is patent-free, as you would expect for a family of cryptosystems studied since 1986 based on centuries-old math. There are a few current patents, but they cover techniques almost nobody uses.
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  If it's patent free, why are people paying for it as I linked to? NSA paid for it and are specific that it applies to FIPS 140-2 solutions. Companies were paying Certicom for it. As far as a few years ago, an article gripes about how much Blackberry charges for it. Just weird that it doesn't apply to anything yet companies and governments were all paying for it. If something has changed, I'd like the definitive answer to come from legal experts (esp aforementioned companies' lawyers) who say the 100+ patents no longer apply to anything we use and they all stopped paying for ECC. Haven't seen it. I'll continue to warn people until (a) I see that contrary reports acknowledge the existence of 100+ patents that companies are actually paying for rather than falsely claim no patents exist and (b) show why all of them never applied or no longer apply to existing ECC schemes. Got a link to that?
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    People are paying for it because they get value out of what they are paying for. TCP/IP isn't patented, but companies will pay several million dollars for a TCP/IP stack for their embedded firmware. Don't conflate people's willingness to pay for a particular implementation (accompanying documentation, support, tools), with a legal requirement that they need to do so for the underlying technology.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      I didn't. I thought that, after much publicity and a lawsuit, they paid for patent licenses out of coercion rather than willingness. The usual reason. Maybe the patents don't apply to anything, NSA was just being generous by buying patent licenses for nothing, and everyone else was buying software licenses. As I asked above, I just want a solid reference showing this and that the 100+ patents don't apply to anything we use. So far, everyone wants me to take their word for it despite my references showing government and companies buying patent licenses. Weird. I'm thinking I should send a letter to Blackberry asking if ECC is covered by their patents or if everyone just wanted to pay for an implementation for various reasons. Might simplify this debate.
  - kragen 11y ago
    tptacek has already responded to your nonsense below at greater length than I have the patience for: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9709692 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9709692 FIPS 140-2 is not a cryptosystem standard; it covers the design of hardware security modules using a wide range of algorithms, the majority of which don't use ECC at all. The fact that you mention it at all (rather than, say, FIPS 186-2 Appendix 6) suggests that you have no idea what it is. Certicom (now part of BlackBerry) offers not just patent licenses but also software licenses. Several of the previously potentially relevant patents (mentioned in the link upthread) have expired within the last five years. I recommend you stop giving people advice on subjects where not only do you know nothing, but the things you think you know are false.
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
- nickpsecurity 11y ago
  @ ghshephard Your comment implies they're only paying for an implementation. To be sure, do you have a link to a resource analyzing the patents on ECC and showing they don't apply to anything they (or we) use for ECC? That it's a moot issue in its entirety or mostly except for known cases? Otherwise, I'm going to guess that you're guessing like everyone else.
  - ghshephard 11y ago
    I'm not sure why you are responding to me here, but don't put words in my mouth. Your question was, "If it's patent free, why are people paying for it as I linked to?" - there are other reasons to purchase a technology than just the patent. Let me spin it another way, and put the ball back in your court. Not that this proves anything, but has anyone (recently) purchased a license for ECC patented technology, that wasn't a license for a certicom specific implementation? Seriously, someone who is an expert in this field (if not the expert), has already made a pretty clear statement here on patent problems wth Ed25519: http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html http://ed25519.cr.yp.to/software.html. As of 2015.06.11 "The authors have not been notified of any claims of patent problems wth Ed25519."
    - nickpsecurity 11y ago
      People only get hit with patent suits for commercial use that I'm aware of. They wouldn't be as it's all free and they don't monetize it. A commercial product using it is where the risk is. I'm assessing that risk. Anyway, thanks for the link as he covers a lot of key patents and some prior art to use.