Showing results for

- Intel Community
- Software Development SDKs and Libraries
- Intel® Integrated Performance Primitives
- ECCPSignSM2 or GFpECSignSM2

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic for Current User
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Printer Friendly Page

Highlighted
**Parent topic:** Public Key Cryptography Functions

huang__zhongqiang

Beginner

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-20-2018
12:44 AM

12 Views

There are two SM2 signature functions in ippcp which belong to different catagories. What is the difference between them?

- Functions Based on GF(p) <------------------- ECCPSignSM2
- Arithmetic of the Group of Elliptic Curve Points <------------ GFpECSignSM2

Accepted Solutions

Highlighted

Igor_A_Intel

Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-21-2018
01:07 AM

12 Views

Hi Zhongqiang,

Below is related information from IPP crypto expert:

Right, there are 2 implementations of EC functionality in IPP.

The 1-st, from historically point of view, there was ippsECCPxxx. This implementation assumes prime underlying Finite Field GF(p).

Later, IPP introduces another one – ippsGFpECxxx functionality. This implementation assumes prime underlying Field could be either prime (GF(p)) as extension of Finite Field (GF(p^n)) or even multi extension GF(p^n^m).

In any means, ippsGFpECxxx functionality is more general and flexible.

Why IPP did that? Some of our customers are using EC over extension of Finite Field.

What is the future of ippsECPxxx functionality? Believe it will be deprecated. So, it could be better to use ippsGFpECxxx functionality instead of old ippsECCPxx one.

Functions ECCPSignSM2 and GFpECSignSM2 are the same (at least in terms of result) if GFpECSM2 is using prime underlying Finite Field.

regards, Igor

3 Replies

Highlighted

Igor_A_Intel

Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-21-2018
01:07 AM

13 Views

Hi Zhongqiang,

Below is related information from IPP crypto expert:

Right, there are 2 implementations of EC functionality in IPP.

The 1-st, from historically point of view, there was ippsECCPxxx. This implementation assumes prime underlying Finite Field GF(p).

Later, IPP introduces another one – ippsGFpECxxx functionality. This implementation assumes prime underlying Field could be either prime (GF(p)) as extension of Finite Field (GF(p^n)) or even multi extension GF(p^n^m).

In any means, ippsGFpECxxx functionality is more general and flexible.

Why IPP did that? Some of our customers are using EC over extension of Finite Field.

What is the future of ippsECPxxx functionality? Believe it will be deprecated. So, it could be better to use ippsGFpECxxx functionality instead of old ippsECCPxx one.

Functions ECCPSignSM2 and GFpECSignSM2 are the same (at least in terms of result) if GFpECSM2 is using prime underlying Finite Field.

regards, Igor

Highlighted

huang__zhongqiang

Beginner

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-21-2018
01:49 AM

12 Views

Hi Igor,

Your answer is very helpful.

Also, is there SM2 encryption and decryption APIs (encrypt by public key and decrypt by private key) in ippcp? I only found SM2 signing and verification functions in ippcp, no SM2 encryption/decryption functions.

Highlighted

Igor_A_Intel

Employee

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Email to a Friend
- Report Inappropriate Content

03-21-2018
04:25 AM

12 Views

IPP doesn't provide such functionality. You can submit a feature request via official channel.

regards, Igor

For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.