Prev: Sexual Contact Privacy
Next: Call for Papers: International Conference on Chemical Engineering ICCE 2010
From: Jason on 19 Jun 2010 07:19
On 17 June, 03:44, Bryan <bryanjugglercryptograp...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> Maaartin wrote:
> > Jason wrote:
> > > Is it definitely ok security wise to use GF(256)?
>
> > I'm no cryptographer, but I'm quite sure it doesn't matter. I hope,
> > others will comfirm.
> Yes, as Maaartin wrote:
> > When you have any field, you can use polynomials over it, and there's
> > nothing more in Shamir's secret sharing. It works, since given enough
> > shares you can uniquely determine the result. It's perfectly secure,
> > since missing a single share the result can be anything.
>
> --
> --Bryan

Ok thanks very much guys. One final question, what sort of performance
can I expect with byte-by-byte sharing in GF(256)? Is it going to be
feasible to apply to say 1mb of data without time issues?
From: Maaartin on 19 Jun 2010 08:18
On Jun 19, 1:19 pm, Jason <tntcod...(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ok thanks very much guys. One final question, what sort of performance
> can I expect with byte-by-byte sharing in GF(256)? Is it going to be
> feasible to apply to say 1mb of data without time issues?

Time should be no problem, just look at the algorithm: Probably the
generation of secure random numbers is the most time consuming
operation. But it takes 1 MB for each share, so it may be better to
encrypt the data and share only a secret key. The encryption will be
probably a bit slower than direct sharing, but for a PC it's all
peanuts.
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Sexual Contact Privacy
Next: Call for Papers: International Conference on Chemical Engineering ICCE 2010