> Licensing-related cost of creating and using such applications. Situation > is > similar to that with RSA 10-15 years ago.
Actually the situation is not as bad as people think. Take a look at http://cr.yp.to/ecdh/patents.html. > PKCS1 is described in the RFC with using RSA. What about ECC ? ECC is standardized by IEEE 1363. There is still a kind of padding that needs to be done, but it's implemented in Crypto++ already. Just use the ECDSA and ECIES classes to do signatures and encryption respectively. > Are all the very protective measures still needed ? What protective measures? > Is there any good reason why ECC is not (commonly?) used with x509 > certificates ? Elliptic curve signature verification may be slower than RSA signature verification, which makes it less suited for certificates which are signed once and verified many times. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the "Crypto++ Users" Google Group. To unsubscribe, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More information about Crypto++ and this group is available at http://www.cryptopp.com. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
