blocks|key|2021637|text|乘法器参数k+是不同的介于SRP+6和6a之间。您可以看到RFC+5054+计算使用域参数的散列(模数N和生成器g)，所以它使用SRP6a，而不是SRP+6，k是常数。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|offset|length|style|CODE|entityRanges|data|2021638|同样，在IEC11770-4(至少2005年10月的草案)第6.2.1节中，等效值c被定义为它称为q和g_{q-1}的域参数的散列，因此它也是基于SRP6a的。|2021639|还有:+ISO/IEC+11770-4:2006可以使用椭圆曲线设置，使用(我猜)较短的密码；SRP是这样的吗？|blockquote|2021640|是。6.2中的协议是为第5节中的任一字段定义的:离散对数域或椭圆曲线域。|entityMap|0|INLINETEX|mutability|IMMUTABLE|teX|k|1|LINK|MUTABLE|url|https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/3509/why-does-srp-6a-use-k-hn-g-instead-of-the-k-3-in-srp-6|2|https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5054#section-2.6|3|N|4|g|5|6|c|7|q|8|g_{q-1}^0|5|1|1F|1|1K|1|27|1|5|1|0|7|4|1|12|2|2|1F|1|3|1K|1|4|27|1|5|0|15|1|1D|1|1F|7|15|1|6|1D|1|7|1F|7|8|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|1B|8|@$9|1C|A|1D|B|C]|$9|1E|A|1F|B|C]|$9|1G|A|1H|B|C]|$9|1I|A|1J|B|C]]|D|@$9|1K|A|1L|1|1M]|$9|1N|A|1O|1|1P]|$9|1Q|A|1R|1|1S]|$9|1T|A|1U|1|1V]|$9|1W|A|1X|1|1Y]|$9|1Z|A|20|1|21]]|E|$]]|$1|F|3|G|5|6|7|22|8|@$9|23|A|24|B|C]|$9|25|A|26|B|C]|$9|27|A|28|B|C]]|D|@$9|29|A|2A|1|2B]|$9|2C|A|2D|1|2E]|$9|2F|A|2G|1|2H]]|E|$]]|$1|H|3|I|5|J|7|2I|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|2J|8|@]|D|@]|E|$]]]|M|$N|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|S]]|T|$5|U|P|V|E|$W|X]]|Y|$5|U|P|V|E|$W|Z]]|10|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|11]]|12|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|13]]|14|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|S]]|15|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|16]]|17|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|18]]|19|$5|O|P|Q|E|$R|1A]]]]

The multiplier parameter $k$ <a href="https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/3509/why-does-srp-6a-use-k-hn-g-instead-of-the-k-3-in-srp-6">is different</a> between SRP 6 and 6a. You can see that RFC 5054 <a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5054#section-2.6" rel="nofollow noreferrer">calculates</a> it using a hash of the domain parameters (modulus $N$ and generator $g$), so it is using SRP 6a, as opposed to SRP 6 where $k$ is constant.
Likewise, in section 6.2.1 of IEC 11770-4 – the October 2005 draft at least – the equivalent value $c$ is defined as a hash of the domain parameters which it calls $q$ and $g_{q-1}$, so it too is based on SRP 6a.
<blockquote>
Also: ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006 can use an Elliptic Curve setting, with (I guess) shorter cryptograms; is that the case for SRP?
</blockquote>
Yes. The protocol in 6.2 is defined for either of the fields in section 5: the discrete logarithm one or the elliptic curve one.

I am on the impression that <a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SRP</a> emerges as the least uncommon and best analyzed protocol for authentication and key agreement based on a short password.
<a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/doc.html#standards" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This</a> states that SRP is part of IEC 11770-4, among other protocols. But no version is specified, and I've seen there's <a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/design1.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SRP-1</a>, <a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/design2.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SRP-2</a>, <a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/design3.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SRP-3</a>, <a href="http://sudis.free.fr/srp6.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SRP-6</a>, and the <a href="http://srp.stanford.edu/design.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">current SRP-6a</a>.
Hence my first question: which version(s) of SRP are in <a href="http://webstore.iec.ch/preview/info_isoiec11770-4%7Bed1.0%7Den.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006</a>? (link is to a free preview; drafts are available <a href="http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/1363/Research/Other.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> to those willing to subscribe to a mailing list, and I have yet to spot a meaningful technical difference between the October 31, 2005 draft and the real thing)
Which list of parameters and options to SRP or/and ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006 would be necessary to define implementations to the point of being secure and inter-operable?
Also: ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006 can use an Elliptic Curve setting, with (I guess) shorter cryptograms; is that the case for SRP?
<hr />
Update: the motivation of the question is that ISO/IEC 11770-4 is an international standard, approved by a committee, which is more reassuring to a decision-maker than SRP-6a as defined by a web page than can disappear or change any second.
In a comment, <a href="https://crypto.stackexchange.com/users/5102/smit-johnth">Smit Johnth</a> suggested <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TLS-SRP" rel="nofollow noreferrer">TLS-SRP</a>/<a href="https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc5054" rel="nofollow noreferrer">RFC 5054</a>, which has some traction. That could be a possible choice. I'm reading it as implementing SRP-6a, despite claiming to implement SRP-6 with reference to documents predating SRP-6a. My main reservations are that TLS is a bit heavy for my application; and RFC 5054 is stuck to SHA-1, which is bad from a certification standpoint: in France, any hash less than 200 bits, or 256 bits for use after year 2020, does not match rules in section 2.3 of these <a href="http://www.ssi.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/RGS_B_1.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">official recommendations</a>, which at least can make a prescriber less comfortable.

Which version(s) of SRP are in ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

教程

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云智能顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云AI代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

功能1上新10个字符

功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符功能2描述100个字符。

功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符功能2上新100个字符。

功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符功能5描述100个字符

功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符功能5上新100个字符

功能4上新

文章&问答评论现已支持表情

全新交互，全新视觉，新增快捷键、悬浮工具栏、高亮块等功能并同时优化现有功能，全面提升创作效率和体验

社区富文本编辑器全新改版！诚邀体验～ 

精选全网热门MCP server，让你的AI更好用 🚀

💥开发者 MCP广场重磅上线！

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

聚焦“写作效率、视觉美观与运行性能”三方面进行全面升级，为您提供更高效、稳定的创作环境

社区富文本&Markdown编辑器全新改版上线，欢迎大家体验!

诚挚邀请您参与本次调研，分享您的真实使用感受与建议。您的反馈至关重要，感谢您的支持与参与！

社区新版编辑器体验调研

我的印象是，SRP是基于短密码的认证和密钥协议中最不常见和分析最好的协议。这声明SRP是IEC11770-4和其他协议的一部分.但是没有指定版本，我已经看到了SRP-1、SRP-2、SRP-3、SRP-6和当前SRP-6a。因此，我的第一个问题:哪一个版本(S)的SRP是在ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006？(链接指向免费预览；那些愿意订阅邮件列表的人可以使用草稿这里，而且我还没有发现200

问哪个版本(S)的SRP在ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006中？
EN

回答 1

Cryptography用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问哪个版本(S)的SRP在ISO/IEC 11770-4:2006中？EN