Return to Answer

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The article linked from this answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously (v. unlikely) or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The article linked from this answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously (v. unlikely) or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The chosen answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously (v. unlikely) or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The article linked from this answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously (v. unlikely) or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The chosen answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.

Here's a good amount of hard data on a variety of curves, well-analysed and the findings summarised in a readable way:

http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/

The chosen answer is not nearly up to the same standard of analysis and, I would argue, deceptive, whether maliciously (v. unlikely) or just due to lack of understanding of basic research methodology.