Comment by westurner
1 day ago
From > 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) 5 comments westurner Reply
ML-KEM is a key establishment scheme, not a signature scheme.
From Gemini then:
> If you tried to make "ML-KEM Certificates" (using a newer mechanism called AuthKEM where you authenticate by proving you can decrypt a challenge rather than signing), you would replace the ~2.4 KB ML-DSA signature with a ~1 KB ML-KEM ciphertext. This saves about 50% of the bandwidth compared to ML-DSA, but it is still roughly 35x larger than a traditional ECC certificate chain.
/? AuthKEM:
kemtls/draft-celi-wiggers-tls-authkem: https://github.com/kemtls/draft-celi-wiggers-tls-authkem
"KEM-based Authentication for TLS 1.3" https://kemtls.org/draft-celi-wiggers-tls-authkem/draft-celi... :
> Table 1. Size comparison of public-key cryptography in TLS 1.3 and AuthKEM handshakes.
"KEM-based pre-shared-key handshakes for TLS 1.3" > "2.2. Key Encapsulation Mechanisms", "3. Abbreviated AuthKEM with pre-shared public KEM keys": https://kemtls.org/draft-celi-wiggers-tls-authkem/draft-wigg...
Is this the thing with ML-KEM, then:
> [With AuthKEM,] you would replace the ~2.4 KB ML-DSA signature with a ~1 KB ML-KEM ciphertext.
2 replies →