Timeline for Using Lattice-based cryptography for TLS\SSL
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 25, 2019 at 5:41 | history | edited | Kind Contributor | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Answering the sub-questions more directly
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 2:59 | history | edited | Kind Contributor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarify answer angle, genericising to pre/post Quantum as the strategy and Lattice as one of the options
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 2:56 | comment | added | Kind Contributor | I also think answers should be declarative, not questioning. I would assume most would test the answer relative to others and their own judgement. If there are others with the same idea(s) I would be more than happy to reference them - I'm sure others have a lot more credibility than me. But until then, if my thinking isn't that outlandish (aka. likely correct) I'm hoping others can suggest such additional references. How do we get Lattice based cryptography into TLS? Combining both (pre / post quantum cryptography). | |
| Mar 14, 2016 at 2:49 | history | edited | Kind Contributor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Clarified DUAL as being a handle only, and also my links as being mine and that they're for more detail and background. And example non-patent algorithm.
|
| Mar 14, 2016 at 2:47 | comment | added | Kind Contributor | @MaartenBodewes This is certainly not an ad. I'm not selling my ideas, blog or products. They are completely relevant to the answer. If there was already a related answer, then perhaps I would agree with you, but in the absence of such, these ideas need to be captured. I've been thinking in this area for over 5 years. If a researcher from a University linked to their own article, would it be a problem? There are few good people in this industry, lets work together. I called it DUAL as a handle, not marketing - a bit like dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com, you need a handle. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 12:05 | comment | added | Maarten Bodewes♦ | Your statements here are too strong. It currently reads as an advertisements for your blog and ideas. You point to an article, probably by yourself, where you propose this idea (which isn't that outlandish or unique) of using crypto in series without actually proposing a scheme. DUAL seems to be just a single thought that has been given a name. Please rewrite your answer to explicitly answer the questions: "Would that be feasible? Are there any drawbacks?" You may of course throw your DUAL idea in the mix but please don't just make it only about your idea. | |
| Mar 13, 2016 at 1:23 | history | edited | Kind Contributor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added heading for the opportunity
|
| Mar 13, 2016 at 1:18 | history | answered | Kind Contributor | CC BY-SA 3.0 |