Hi folks.
I'm currently reading RFC4880 and I think I have many minor questions... is
the gnupg-users list the right place to ask? Or is there any better place?
Anyway,... I think I start right now and ask my first question,.. (think
it's easier to handle if I ask only one or two questions per mai
On Jan 26, 2009, at 9:02 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi folks.
I'm currently reading RFC4880 and I think I have many minor
questions... is the gnupg-users list the right place to ask? Or is
there any better place?
Look for the ietf-openpgp mailing list at
http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/op
Hi David.
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> I'm currently reading RFC4880 and I think I have many minor questions... is
>> the gnupg-users list the right place to ask? Or is there any better place?
> Look for the ietf-openpgp mailing list at
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charte
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 05:22:11PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:52 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> >> I'm currently reading RFC4880 and I think I have many minor questions...
> >> is the gnupg-users list the right place to ask? Or is there any better
> >> place?
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> Ah, thanks. So I'd should be 254 for better security of the private key,
>> right?
> Yes. See http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076.pdf for the attack that
> prompted this extra layer of protection.
Ah,.. interesting,.. thanks for that pointer.
>>
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 10:36:21PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> >> Uhm, I just wanted to follow the recommendation of the RFC ;-)
> > The RFC says "If interoperability is not an issue, the new packet
> > format is RECOMMENDED." Given that inte
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> No, they don't have a concept of a packet type above 15. There are
> only 4 type bits in the old-style packet header. :)
Yes, that was clear
> Old programs will basically blow up if they see something they don't
> understand. There is a spec
On Jan 26, 2009, at 6:15 PM, Peter Thomas wrote:
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:31 PM, David Shaw
wrote:
No, they don't have a concept of a packet type above 15. There are
only 4 type bits in the old-style packet header. :)
Yes, that was clear
Old programs will basically blow up if they see s
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 4:57 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> They should at least fail - a new style RFC-4880 (or 2440) packet (of any
> type) is unreadable by an old RFC-1991 program. It simply won't be
> meaningful. At to *how* it will fail, that depends on the program.
>
> The point of the Marker Pac
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> No, but you could patch it if you liked. Take a look at the
> write_header() and write_new_header() functions in build-packet.c
Although you've convinced me that using old packet types where
possible is preferable, I still tried to get this wor
Hi.
I've just made some tests. And it showed that anybody can change the
paket header from old to new for any key (even without the secret
key).
Of course I've expected this, but is this the case for all signature
types, that gnupg doesn't include the paket header in the signing but
just the body?
On Jan 28, 2009, at 6:05 AM, Peter Thomas wrote:
Hi.
I've just made some tests. And it showed that anybody can change the
paket header from old to new for any key (even without the secret
key).
Of course I've expected this, but is this the case for all signature
types, that gnupg doesn't includ
On really last addition on this (promised :-) ):
I tried to mix up keys with new and old packet header types.
Is it desired that gnupg simply converts them back to old packet
headers (if possible) without any notice to the user?
What will keyservers do when someone uploads a key with e.g. old
pack
Peter Thomas wrote:
> On really last addition on this (promised :-) ):
> I tried to mix up keys with new and old packet header types.
> Is it desired that gnupg simply converts them back to old packet
> headers (if possible) without any notice to the user?
>
> What will keyservers do when someone
On Feb 1, 2009, at 8:28 PM, Peter Thomas wrote:
On really last addition on this (promised :-) ):
I tried to mix up keys with new and old packet header types.
Is it desired that gnupg simply converts them back to old packet
headers (if possible) without any notice to the user?
The packet header
15 matches
Mail list logo
