Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.security > #5623

Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

2 fish... that in it's self is bad.  AES, sure lets all be ok about that.

I also read the article and I realise I still rely on gpg far too much and
that I need to ween myself off of it!


Iain

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:33 PM qmi (list) <lista@miklos.info> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On 7/19/19 1:34 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> > I found the following article about PGP/GnuPG:
> > https://latacora.singles/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html
> >
> > In short you should drop GnuPG because it doesn’t do anything really
> > the right way. It should be replaced with different tools for
> > different situations.
>
> I checked that article. For e.g. the article says, "If you’re lucky,
> your local GnuPG defaults to 2048-bit RSA, the 64-bit-block CAST5 cipher
> in CFB, ..."
>
> Wrong. The current implementation of GnuPG shipped by Debian Buster -
> version 2.2.12 - does support modern cryptographic standards for
> symmetric encryption, not only CAST5. For e.g., it does support twofish
> and aes. Both of which use 128-bit block sizes, AFAIK. See command
> output for gpg below about supported algorithms:
>
> "
>
> qmi@qmiacer:~$ gpg --version
>
> gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.12
> (...)
> Supported algorithms:
> Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ECDH, ECDSA, EDDSA
> Cipher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH,
>          CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256
> (...)
> "
>
> So it's good enough, apparently.
>
> >
> > Debian is using GnuPG for signing files. From the article:
> >
> > Signing Packages
> >
> > Use Signify/Minisign. Ted Unangst will tell you all about it. It’s what
>
> You may be right, though. That tool might have better bindings for
> modern programming languages.
>
> Regards,
> --
> qmi
> Email: lista@miklos.info
>
>

Back to linux.debian.security | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Stephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net> - 2019-07-19 13:50 +0200
  Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? "qmi (list)" <lista@miklos.info> - 2019-07-20 21:40 +0200
    Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Iain Grant <iain@panfantastic.co.uk> - 2019-07-20 22:10 +0200
      Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb@gmail.com> - 2019-07-21 21:20 +0200
        Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Iain Grant <iain@panfantastic.co.uk> - 2019-07-21 23:40 +0200
    Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Malte <malte@wk3.org> - 2019-07-21 16:50 +0200
      Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? qmi <lista@miklos.info> - 2019-07-21 18:30 +0200
  Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Pieter le Roux <pgp@myleroux.net> - 2019-07-25 10:00 +0200
    Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? Volker Birk <vb@pep-project.org> - 2019-07-25 15:30 +0200

csiph-web