HN.zip

ML-KEM Mythbusting

21 points by durumcrustulum - 3 comments
contact9879 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
thanks sophie. now if only this would get as many eyeballs as the inciting one

sigh

westurner [3 hidden]5 mins ago
From https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45743372 re: the Cloudflare Merkle Tree draft:

> Problem is PQ signatures are large. If certificate chain is small that could be acceptable, but if the chain is large, then it can be expensive in terms of bandwidth and computation during TLS handshake. That is the exchange sends many certificates which embed a signature and a large (PQ) public key.

> Merkle Tree Certificates ensures that an up to date client only needs 1 signature, 1 public key, 1 merkle tree witness.

> Looking at an MTC generated certificate they've replaced the traditional signing algorithm and signature with a witness.

> That means all a client needs is a signed merkle root which comes from an expanding Merkle Tree signed by the MTCA (Merkle Tree CA), which is delivered somehow out of band.

From "Keeping the Internet fast and secure: introducing Merkle Tree Certificates" (2025-10) https://blog.cloudflare.com/bootstrap-mtc/ :

> The central problem is the sheer size of these new algorithms: signatures for ML-DSA-44, one of the most performant PQ algorithms standardized by NIST, are 2,420 bytes long, compared to just 64 bytes for ECDSA-P256, the most popular non-PQ signature in use today; and its public keys are 1,312 bytes long, compared to just 64 bytes for ECDSA. That's a roughly 20-fold increase in size. Worse yet, the average TLS handshake includes a number of public keys and signatures, adding up to 10s of kilobytes of overhead per handshake. This is enough to have a noticeable impact on the performance of TLS.

Are ML-KEM certs impractically large too?

durumcrustulum [3 hidden]5 mins ago
ML-KEM is a key establishment scheme, not a signature scheme.