-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> On Aug 11, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>> 1024 bit keys and SHA-1 links are currently considered safe so there's
>> no reason to believe that apache keys have been compromised. transition
>> statements [1] in a trusted location will probably be good enough to
>> convince most people to re-sign. but we'd need to think carefully about
>> a sufficient secure infrastructure before recommending this.
> 
> There is nothing wrong with the existing keys. There is no danger
> of any compromise, even by brute-force attack.  Our signatures are
> used for verification, not privacy, and in any case the "schedule"
> for key sizes becoming weak is based on speculation.  There is no
> evidence to suggest that anyone has managed to find a specific
> private key to match a given 1024-bit public key.

the weakness with 1024 bit keys is that they have to use SHA-1 which is
now looking vulnerable. this issues effects both the WOT and signing but
not encryption.

i agree that the key size estimates beyond 2048 are just speculation. no
one really knows whether 4096 will be found to be too weak before SHA-3
 is finalised. it is clear that 4096 is a better size for new keys than
2048.

> Quite frankly, I think that this effort to purge 1024 bit keys will
> simply make PGP useless for verifications, since PGP without the
> web of trust is a friggin waste of time.  What people should do is
> increase the default key size for new keys and just be happy that
> anyone uses PGP/GPG at all.

this isn't about a purge but an orderly transition whilst there's time
to do that. if it were just encryption i'd agree that it's a waste of time.

the problem is that the WOT uses SHA-1. if people act whilst SHA-1 can
still be reasonably trusted then the WOT can be re-established
relatively easily. every SHA-1 link between weaker keys can be replaced
by a SHA-512 link between stronger keys. if it's broken before we start
the transition it will be much more difficult.

- - robert
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=16P1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to