Implementation of PQC Algorithms in libgcrypt
simon at josefsson.org
Tue May 16 08:09:23 CEST 2023
Stephan Mueller <smueller at chronox.de> writes:
> Am Montag, 15. Mai 2023, 17:39:23 CEST schrieb Simon Josefsson via Gcrypt-
> Hi Simon,
>> Does kyber have any requirements on the API that wouldn't work well with
>> any of these?
> I am experimenting with Kyber in . For KEM, your API would work.
Thanks for confirming this! Looking at the code, it seems Kyber KEM has
exactly the same API as sntrup761, which probably was a NIST PQCS
requirement, and we should expect that other KEM's follow a similar
I think that sntrup761 can be added to libgcrypt now since it has been
stable since 2017, but I'm less sure about Kyber since it is stuck in
the NIST process -- aren't there some risk that NIST will modify the
> There you see that I use an additional parameter, an RNG context. This allows
> me to also derive Kyber keys straight from a KDF (which is accessed like an
> RNG context). But that is not really needed.
Right, I use the RNG context internally in sntrup761.c as well, but I
don't think it should be exposed to libgcrypt callers. The internal RNG
context will be useful for self-testing. This is especially true since
I think test vectors for KEM's are implementation-specific: if you
optimize the implementation to re-order RNG calls, the test vectors will
no longer work. Thus, you can't really do black-box testing with KEM
KATs. The libgcrypt selftest() approach is perfectly suited for doing a
whitebox test internally though.
> However, how do you propose to handle the KEX scenario? See  for the full
> Kyber KEX exchange and the API. I think the KEX is much more important than
> the KEM, as the KEX is conceptually what is DH today. Kyber KEM can be used in
> an integrated encryption schema as suggested in .
> Unfortunately, the Kyber KEX cannot be acting as a direct replacement for DH.
> Due to its 7 total steps. However, it is possible to coalescing all of them
> into 2 handshake network exchanges and one final data blob that is sent along
> with the already encrypted first payload.
I think this should be through a completely different API than for KEM
or public-key encrypt/decrypt, and an API that is customized for the KEX
functionality. The properties are different from existing APIs, similar
to how AEAD ciphers differs from ECB ciphers, and how KDF differs from
MAC/hashes. Also compare how libgcrypt contains an API for X25519/X448
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 255 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gcrypt-devel