Aaron Rainbolt <arraybolt3@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > If this was to be "resurrected" to some degree, it would be neat if > this could be combined with a more traditional Ed25519 signature > verification, similar to the hybrid PQ kex algorithms currently > available. Depending on how exactly SLH-DSA works (which I have not > studied), that might be way over-paranoid, but my workplace likes way > over-paranoid :P > > If there's something I could do to meaningfully contribute to this sort > of thing, feel free to let me know. SLH-DSA/SPHINCS+ is based on traditional old-school hashes (e.g., SHA2), and I think many cryptographers are even more comfortable with that compared to RSA/ECDSA/EDDSA. Could you read up on SLH-DSA and re-evaluate? I like belt and suspenders approaches, but one shouldn't be blind to specifics. I would not use ML-DSA unless it was in a hybrid, and I generally prefer hybrid constructs for everything PQ, but for SLH-DSA I am personally ready to make an exception. The risk for signatures is smaller than KEX's, where the attack surface becomes passively decrypting all prior communication, whereas for signatures it requires an online active SLH-DSA attack to be useful. For long-term SSHSIG used to authenticate software releases (via git signing) this argument doesn't apply though. Still, maybe this is a losing fight, and that it is actually simpler to promote Ed25519 + SLH-DSA in a hybrid because the optics of it is simpler to take in for everyone who are migrating from a Ed25519 world. Having more discussion and opinions on this would be nice. /Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ openssh-unix-dev mailing list openssh-unix-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.mindrot.org/mailman/listinfo/openssh-unix-dev
