Talk:Elliptic-curve Diffie–Hellman

Talk

It is not clear that the domain parameter n is the order of the group; however, this is the case. 18.244.3.159 (talk) 04:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi I need help with ,y surespot account Myron Analok (talk) 21:41, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Just want to say that for a relative layman like myself this is probably the most lucid and well explained article around this topic I have read so far. Had an epiphany after reading this, and suddenly everything fell into place. Thanks to the author(s). 178.255.168.77 (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

ECDH and Protocol Security

The article states, "The protocol is secure because nothing is disclosed..." Unfortunately, nothing is authenticated, so its only secure against eavesdroppers (passive attackers). It will fail against active attackers (ie, Man in the Middle (MitM)). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 22:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs section on vulnerabilities

Isn't this an encryption used by Tor? If so, it seems like this merits a much more detailed article.

Also, is it vulnerable to the attacks described on the elliptic curve article, or to other ones?

• http://rump2007.cr.yp.to/15-shumow.pdf
• http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/11/securitymatters_1115
• http://eprint.iacr.org/2004/342.pdf

What is being done with Tor to mitigate the risks of having "magic constants" and recommended pseudo-random number generators supplied by US government agencies?

99.118.9.187 (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Link [4] is broken

195.62.204.234 (talk) 09:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Value of dG

The text says that, "Q = dG, that is, the result of adding G together d times)."

I'm not a cryptographer, but isn't dG the result of adding G together d-1 times? I mean, 2G = G + G, which is adding G together once. Or would it be better to say, "that is, the result of adding d copies of G together"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.43.78 (talk) 18:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Problematic wording

In the section "Key establishment protocol" a paragraph ends with:

"Each party must have the other party's public key (an exchange must occur)."

It is unclear whether this is a pre-condition or the goal. In order words the article does not clearly identify whether the goal of this process is to exchange these public keys or whether the parties must already have each other's keys in order to engage in the exchange.

Perhaps one can figure it out, but the current wording is needlessly opaque. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.92 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I've addressed it with this edit. —Quondum 20:35, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add a cryptographic explanation as in Diffie–Hellman_key_exchange#Cryptographic_explanation. 117.195.57.218 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)