From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XgxLF-0007Il-Jw for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:56:49 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from mail-wg0-f48.google.com ([74.125.82.48]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XgxLD-0007Kw-Jc for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:56:49 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f48.google.com with SMTP id k14so3969199wgh.31 for ; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=SXkJ5ltGt743pl7Ma1PHhmxGyCl5jwQbSk3abGv8M7U=; b=IPu2ETm9ZMaYFOjDvjxs8UwJlNOhOUEGayFs9X4zZE1/wujNVudVsuZtcGvwr1akVM 9ywYndVgZYPshD1jAiWYJJYx2B0ShSsX5XU4GVNuErZt/C43SEahOOA9yBr2vk2i+hdI bNfR15miiDRy1EMhOp+owOht6snjZ+iPydBkBv+NTgSRQcyv2sz9a6Do4x8NzLx+qWEb RwkYzcnl4ASFg5CDu7xMrDvE/Ao3abB7zi/aneyhwvZYm+Tya3lm75u6//okBkAHX05R G5oxZP6ciC3NosH9cYZP4655K128NXi//eYJQGIKdcccgGg0vVFJ45YwkeVp0vhcw61t T8fA== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmnmOc7HrhlFSs8q9SAerusdAlpfIDqJWuGzgD+wa0GXbeRLjhDdHfwJSFVZ8e3itxWAEeT X-Received: by 10.180.104.99 with SMTP id gd3mr6361138wib.10.1413989801166; Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:56:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tetra.site (nat-0-15.lam.cz. [80.92.242.254]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ky3sm19147883wjb.39.2014.10.22.07.56.38 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 22 Oct 2014 07:56:38 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5447C5A5.8080400@gk2.sk> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:56:37 +0200 From: Pavol Rusnak User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mem Wallet , bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net References: In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. X-Headers-End: 1XgxLD-0007Kw-Jc Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] cryptographic review requested X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:56:49 -0000 On 09/23/2014 11:12 PM, Mem Wallet wrote: > - M,Sender_Address = ReceiveMessage( eM, Decrypting_Key ) It is > acceptable for deterministic nonces to be used for signatures, however > nonces generated for ECIES must be high quality random bytes. (excepting > unit test vectors) Could you please describe what might get wrong if one uses deterministic nonces for ECIES as well? Thanks! -- Best Regards / S pozdravom, Pavol Rusnak