-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gilmore etc. have made comments, includingt the quoted passage below
from the Linux IPsec list, indiciating that DSA is "not as trustworthy
as RSA".
Can anyone here offer some more details?
I _know_ it's a 'fuzzy' discomfort, I'm just looking for backup data.
>X-Authentication-Warning: toad.com: Host localhost [127.0.0.1] didn't
use HELO protocol
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: linux-ipsec: Public meeting at Usenix LISA conf on FreeS/WAN
- - report
>Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 12:37:12 -0800
>From: John Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
>We have a choice between deploying FreeS/WAN's public-key
authentication
>support using RSA or DSA. My personal feeling is that DSA is not
nearly
>as trustworthy as RSA (for reasons too long and fuzzy to go into
here).
>Whatever we first deploy will tend to define what's required for
>interoperation, particularly as we move toward opportunistic
encryption
>and you can't pick the hardware or software on the other end of the
>tunnel to be compatible with yours (as you can in a private VPN).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2
iQA/AwUBOEAwpj/0TyQ4fTjtEQIlggCg6uic89x2K+JqddedBKeYQXPEeyQAoIGS
N0W53/5DcHItVojpPTolkexA
=/o/8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
