-1
$\begingroup$

I have a paper on post quantum cryptography about Key-establishment Algorithms, that I wish to submit it to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

I found on their website that the last deadline was on November 30, 2017. Is there any new Deadline?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
3
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ You won't be able to compete within the PQC competition, if that's what you mean. You should instead make sure that your algorithm is peer reviewed. After that you may have to wait until after the competition to be even considered. If your paper is on topic w.r.t. current candidates then you may post it at the mailing list $\endgroup$ – Maarten Bodewes♦ Dec 30 '20 at 20:59
  • $\begingroup$ Alternatively, IETF isn't a bad place to submit cryptography articles, AES-SIV was one example. $\endgroup$ – DannyNiu Dec 31 '20 at 12:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Please don't spam the IETF (CFRG, actually) with homebrew crypto. If you feel the need to share it, you can post it on eprint ( eprint.iacr.org ) $\endgroup$ – poncho Dec 31 '20 at 16:11
2
$\begingroup$

The NIST PQC project had started since 2016, deadline for entry had passed on November 2017. But according to NIST-IR-8309, they are still open to new ideas. So what are they looking for?

They said this (on page 26):

NIST is pleased with the progress of the PQC standardization effort but recognizes that current and future research may lead to promising schemes which were not part of the NIST PQC Standardization Project. NIST may adopt a mechanism to accept such proposals at a later date. ...

We could only guess what they may be planning.

First, the 3 Lattice-based KEMs, (Kyber, NTRU, Saber) are as efficient as physically and logically possible - the maths they use spends little time compared to the hash and XOF functions they use as components. So if you have an idea on a key establishment algorithm, it'd better be significantly more efficient and more secure than those 3, and should ideally be based on something other than lattice.

Also, their codes are public. You can compile and benchmark them to see if your algorithm runs any faster than any of those 3.

Secondly,

... In particular, NIST would be interested in a general-purpose digital signature scheme which is not based on structured lattices.

Because the only digital signature schemes compact enough for general use are Dilithium and Falcon. Dilithium is based on modular lattice (somewhatly structured lattice) and Falcon is based on NTRU lattice (very structured lattice).

So if you have a miracle signature algorithm that's as efficient as those two, and have compact public key and signature size and is based on somewhatly different hardness assumption, NIST would have every reason to consider it in the future.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.