NIST Crypto-agility Workshop

Working Group(s) IAM, Key Management & Privacy (IKP)
1
2

How about changing something like “Is Crypto-Agility essential for the validity of blockchain and crypto assets?”

what I thought is following.

  • We do not have consensus on “what is cryptographic agility”

  • to protect attack from CRQC, use of PQC(and public key cryptography) is essential.

  • what is desired situation?

    • currently : assets are protected traditional cryptography
    • desired situation : protect assets with PQC

  • General approach for migration (in case of, information system is not related with blockchain)

    • General approach
        1. starting with current quantum fragile system A.
        1. run quantum resident system B, which is interoperable with system A
        1. decrease use of A, and migrate to B.
    • Problem with blockchain (or bitcoin)
      • many asset owner manage their private key for A by themself
      • “every private key owners migrate to their key for B” unlikely happen. (I think it is impossible)
      • It means, 2. can continue very long period.
      • in 2., you would keep interoperability between system A and B, and it is costly.
      • We might had better assumethat general approach is impossible.
    • what can we do?
      • we might take approach of not maintain interoperability
        • it sound like hard fork.
        • it wound like… Block chain community have experience for that approach.
    • we might re-think about necessity of interoperability, or what extend we need to provide interoperability.
1 Like
3

Our proposal is accepted to present at the workshop.
The presentation date/time: 2:40 pm on April 18.

4

I’ll be presenting at the workshop. Here’s the first version of the deck, and would like to get any feedback from BGIN communities. Especially any insight on p10 will be quite helpful, but any feedback is appreciated.

5

I’ve updated p10 to be more detailed and persuasive.
Again, any comment will be appreiated!