1

I am looking for methods to avoid the final subtraction in Montgomery multiplication. I found this paper "A Cryptographic Library for the Motorola DSP56000 " (http://goo.gl/DHePEx) In this paper they have said that we can avoid final subtraction if we keep N(modulus)

Rick
  • 1,305
  • 8
  • 17

2 Answers2

2

Brett just asked & answered this question : Confused about final subtraction of modulus in Montgomery Multiplication, during modular exponentiation

You should increase $R$ exponent by $2$. If you use $n=1024$ , increase it to be $$n=1024 + 2 = 1026.$$ Recalculate the pre-compute $R'$, based on the new exponent. $$R' = 2^{(2\cdot 1026)} \bmod(M).$$

kelalaka
  • 49,797
  • 12
  • 123
  • 211
Adir
  • 121
  • 3
1

The above mentioned work is focused on a hardware implementation (I have this work as a PDF). I'd suggest you to search for:

  1. Colin D. Walter. Montgomery Exponentiation Needs no Final Subtractions. Electronics Letters, 35(21):1831{1832, October 1999.
  2. Colin D. Walter. Montgomery's Multiplication Technique: How to Make It Smaller and Faster. In C etin K. Koc and Christof Paar, editors, Cryptographic Hardware and Embedded Systems - CHES '99, volume 1717 of LNCS, pages 80{93. Springer- Verlag, August 1999.

Those I don't have and never tried to find.


Montgomery Exponentiation with no Final Subtractions: Improved Results Gael Hachez and Jean-Jacques Quisquater

Abstract. The Montgomery multiplication is commonly used as the core algorithm for cryptosystems based on modular arithmetic. With the advent of new classes of attacks (timing attacks, power attacks), the implementation of the algorithm should be carefully studied to thwart those attacks. Recently, Colin D. Walter proposed a constant time implementation of this algorithm [17, 18]. In this paper, we propose an improved (faster ) version of this implementation. We also provide gures about the overhead of these versions relatively to a speed optimised version (theoretically and experimentally).

tum_
  • 306
  • 1
  • 3
  • 9