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* to

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 default.

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 b

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 http:/

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 remove

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 of the box GnuPG only g