On 15/04/19 17:51, Pascal Van Leeuwen wrote: > I don't know about SM2, but both SM3 and SM4 are already implemented in > the kernel tree as generic C code and covered by the testmgr. I stand corrected. > There also has been quite some analysis done on them (Google is your > friend) and they are generally considered secure. Good. > Besides that, they are > in heavy practical use in mainland China, usually as direct replacements > for SHA2-256 and AES in whatever protocol or use case you need: IPsec, > TLS, WPA2, XTS for disk encryption, you name it. How should that mean anything? >> Because as far as I know, they could be just as secure as double rot13. > > You could educate yourself first instead of just making assumptions? I did educate myself a bit, but I'm not an expert in cryptography, so I would like to be sure that these are not another Speck or DUAL-EC-DRBG. "SM2 is based on ECC(Elliptic Curve Cryptography), and uses a special curve" is enough for me to see warning signs, at least without further explanations, and so does the fact that the initial SM3 values were changed from SHA-2 and AFAICT there is no public justification for that. Paolo
