Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-10-02 17:38:36 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> But in terms of being willing to make changes to the GnuPG option space >> that break backward compatibility for some users in order to improve the >> overall state of GnuPG crypto, removing --enable-large-rsa isn't >> anywhere *close*

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> But in terms of being willing to make changes to the GnuPG option space > that break backward compatibility for some users in order to improve the > overall state of GnuPG crypto, removing --enable-large-rsa isn't > anywhere *close* to the top of my list. It's fine if it's not at the top of the

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-10-02 15:04:07 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Anyone want to point out what I'm missing? I don't want to sound as if > my mind is made up, but right now it truly seems to me the > --enable-large-rsa option is a misfeature. I agree that there's no good reason to enable it by

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> see also https://bugs.debian.org/739424 and https://dev.gnupg.org/T1732 > > here's the commit log: Thank you for digging this up. I'd like to open a discussion about removing this option. First, I think it was a misfeature from conception. The justification was, "Some older implementations

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Mon 2017-10-02 10:46:48 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> In batch mode it can go higher.  > > I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the > --enable-large-rsa flag. > > When did this get introduced? Why? What possible use case is there for > this? It was introduced in 2014 in git

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Peter Lebbing
On 02/10/17 16:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the > --enable-large-rsa flag. Note that the key in question appears to be an ElGamal subkey, not RSA. Not that that makes a difference to your questions and sentiments :-). Peter. -- I use the GNU

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Robert J. Hansen
> In batch mode it can go higher.  I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the --enable-large-rsa flag. When did this get introduced? Why? What possible use case is there for this? ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org

Re: Smartcard not seen when reinserted

2017-10-02 Thread Matthias Apitz
El día lunes, octubre 02, 2017 a las 01:35:16p. m. +0200, Franck Routier escribió: > My problem, in addition to the pin being cached "forever" (as long as > the card is inserted, with no time limit), is that when I remove and > reinsert the card, it is not recognized unless I restart gpg-agent.

Re: Smartcard not seen when reinserted

2017-10-02 Thread Franck Routier
Le 01/10/2017 à 20:33, Matthias Apitz a écrit : > El día domingo, octubre 01, 2017 a las 06:37:46p. m. +0200, Franck Routier > escribió: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a problem where my OpenPGP smartcard is not recognized when I >> remove it from the reader and reinsert it. >> >> Moreover I like to

Re: 1024 key with large sub key

2017-10-02 Thread Nils Vogels
In batch mode it can go higher. On 2 Oct 2017 2:53 am, "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:this 1024 key has a 8192 sub key what is te meaning of such a large sub key? You'd have to ask the owner.  If he used GnuPG to generate this key he'd have to hack on the source code, because out