Re: Precompiled Windows-Binaries with Large-Secmem-Support
> I merely asked why the official Windows binaries (at least those > inGPG4Win) are not compiled with the already existing option > "enable-large-secmem", which would allow keys up to 8192bit in batch That option has only been introduced to satisfy the needs of a few nerds and for helping with research tasks. Those who need this should know how to setup up a build and distribution system needed for their special needs. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Precompiled Windows-Binaries with Large-Secmem-Support
> > "Because I think it would be cool" is a good answer if you're the one > writing the patch and volunteering to do long-term support of it. All > other people need to be able to answer it. > Hello! I suspect the tone of your reply and the fact that you put me near script kiddies is due to the previous discussions about key length?! So let me set the record straight on a few things: I did not talk about 16384bit keys, nor did I suggest or demand a patch for GnuPG. I merely asked why the official Windows binaries (at least those inGPG4Win) are not compiled with the already existing option "enable-large-secmem", which would allow keys up to 8192bit in batch mode operation, and suggested to do so in future versions. Much has already been argued about the sense or nonsense, we don't need to repeat that here. But the option is already implemented and used in other ready-made packages, e.g. in Debian Buster. So to the best of my knowledge beyond a setting switch when compiling new versions, there would be no long-term support effort in the code. So why not also under Windows? Karel ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Precompiled Windows-Binaries with Large-Secmem-Support
> I know there are and have been fierce discussions about the useful > length of RSA-Keys. I don't want to dive deeper into that, and I hope > this special question has not been discussed recently: If you're going to propose a change like that, you need to make a case for it. * Who currently is being harmed by not supporting RSA-16384? * Why is RSA-16384 necessary for them? "Because I think it would be cool" is a good answer if you're the one writing the patch and volunteering to do long-term support of it. All other people need to be able to answer it. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
