'[dev-crypto] XMSS/LMS survey results.'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       bouncycastle-crypto-dev
Subject:    [dev-crypto] XMSS/LMS survey results.
From:       David Hook <dgh () bouncycastle ! org>
Date:       2018-07-29 7:06:15
Message-ID: b659e822-659f-473a-cf26-155ac95e0b9e () bouncycastle ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi All,

Thanks to those who responded to our survey on XMSS/LMS

We sent emails to both our dev list and announce list (around 600
people/organisations). We got 6 replies.

The survey questions and answers are below:

1. Do you currently use the BC version of XMSS/XMSS^MT? Yes/No

Yes (2) No (4)

2. If the answer to 1 is no: do you expect to use XMSS/XMSS^MT in an
application in the next 12 months? Yes/No

Yes (1)

3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is yes : what kind of application is
XMSS/XMSS^MT used for? (a) financial sector (b) law/legal (c) government
(d) education/teaching (e) other

(a) 0 (b) 1 (c) 0 (d) 1 (e) 1

4. Would you like to see Bouncy Castle add an implementation of LMS as
well? Yes/No

Yes (2)

The No responses indicated "No opinion" in 2 cases, rather than simply No=
=2E
In the case of the other 2 that said No, they indicated they were
waiting to see how the NIST PQC process played out before making any
long term decisions as to what they wanted to use.

Our intention, for now, is to keep track of LMS and see how things pan
out with it.

Regards,

David

> Hi All,
>
> As some of you are probably aware, the US body NIST are currently
> seeking proposals on post-quantum cryptography algorithms.
>
> NIST have just expressed an interest in stateful signature algorithms,
> and have asked for feedback about the two algorithms currently been
> standardized by the IETF. XMSS/XMSS^MT which has just recently been
> published as RFC 8391, and LMS which is still going through the IETF
> process.
>
> We have had an implementation of XMSS for a while now so have offered t=
o
> do a quick survey, both to give NIST an idea of what people would like
> to see, and also for our own purposes as we are now looking at LMS. If
> you are either using XMSS/XMSS^MT or planning to make use of
> XMSS/XMSS^MT please answer the questions below.
>
> Here are the questions:
>
> 1. Do you currently use the BC version of XMSS/XMSS^MT? Yes/No
>
> 2. If the answer to 1 is no: do you expect to use XMSS/XMSS^MT in an
> application in the next 12 months? Yes/No
>
> 3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is yes : what kind of application is
> XMSS/XMSS^MT used for? (a) financial sector (b) law/legal (c) governmen=
t
> (d) education/teaching (e) other
>
> 4. Would you like to see Bouncy Castle add an implementation of LMS as
> well? Yes/No
>
> Please respond to feedback-crypto@bouncycastle.org by 21st July.
>
> Assuming we get responses, we will make aggregate survey results, based=

> on the questions above, available on both these lists the week after as=

> well as passing the aggregate results on to NIST.
>
> Individual responses will be deleted once the aggregate results have
> been put together.
>
> Any questions about the above, please feel free to contact us.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David


[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<html>
  <head>

    <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
  </head>
  <body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
    <p><br>
    </p>
    <p>Hi All,</p>
    <p>Thanks to those who responded to our survey on XMSS/LMS<br>
    </p>
    <p>We sent emails to both our dev list and announce list (around 600
      people/organisations). We got 6 replies. </p>
    <p>The survey questions and answers are below:<br>
      <br>
      1. Do you currently use the BC version of XMSS/XMSS^MT? Yes/No<br>
      <br>
      Yes (2) No (4)<br>
      <br>
      2. If the answer to 1 is no: do you expect to use XMSS/XMSS^MT in
      an<br>
      application in the next 12 months? Yes/No<br>
      <br>
      Yes (1)<br>
      <br>
      3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is yes : what kind of application is<br>
      XMSS/XMSS^MT used for? (a) financial sector (b) law/legal (c)
      government<br>
      (d) education/teaching (e) other<br>
      <br>
      (a) 0 (b) 1 (c) 0 (d) 1 (e) 1<br>
      <br>
      4. Would you like to see Bouncy Castle add an implementation of
      LMS as<br>
      well? Yes/No</p>
    <p>Yes (2)<br>
      <br>
      The No responses indicated "No opinion" in 2 cases, rather than
      simply No.<br>
      In the case of the other 2 that said No, they indicated they were
      waiting to see how the NIST PQC process played out before making
      any long term decisions as to what they wanted to use.</p>
    <p>Our intention, for now, is to keep track of LMS and see how
      things pan out with it.<br>
    </p>
    <p>Regards,</p>
    <p>David<br>
    </p>
    <p>
      <blockquote type="cite">
        <pre wrap="">Hi All,

As some of you are probably aware, the US body NIST are currently
seeking proposals on post-quantum cryptography algorithms.

NIST have just expressed an interest in stateful signature algorithms,
and have asked for feedback about the two algorithms currently been
standardized by the IETF. XMSS/XMSS^MT which has just recently been
published as RFC 8391, and LMS which is still going through the IETF
process.

We have had an implementation of XMSS for a while now so have offered to
do a quick survey, both to give NIST an idea of what people would like
to see, and also for our own purposes as we are now looking at LMS. If
you are either using XMSS/XMSS^MT or planning to make use of
XMSS/XMSS^MT please answer the questions below.

Here are the questions:

1. Do you currently use the BC version of XMSS/XMSS^MT? Yes/No

2. If the answer to 1 is no: do you expect to use XMSS/XMSS^MT in an
application in the next 12 months? Yes/No

3. If the answer to 1 or 2 is yes : what kind of application is
XMSS/XMSS^MT used for? (a) financial sector (b) law/legal (c) government
(d) education/teaching (e) other

4. Would you like to see Bouncy Castle add an implementation of LMS as
well? Yes/No

Please respond to <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" \
href="mailto:feedback-crypto@bouncycastle.org">feedback-crypto@bouncycastle.org</a> \
by 21st July.

Assuming we get responses, we will make aggregate survey results, based
on the questions above, available on both these lists the week after as
well as passing the aggregate results on to NIST.

Individual responses will be deleted once the aggregate results have
been put together.

Any questions about the above, please feel free to contact us.

Thanks,

David
</pre>
      </blockquote>
      <br>
    </p>
  </body>
</html>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure | About | News | Add a list | Sponsored by KoreLogic