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

Groups > linux.debian.security > #5621 > unrolled thread

PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?

Started byStephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net>
First post2019-07-19 13:50 +0200
Last post2019-07-25 15:30 +0200
Articles 9 — 8 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.security

Contents

  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

#5621 — PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?

FromStephan Seitz <stse+debian@fsing.rootsland.net>
Date2019-07-19 13:50 +0200
SubjectPGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?
Message-ID<ylzyF-7vw-1@gated-at.bofh.it>

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

Hi!

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.

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
OpenBSD uses to sign packages. It’s extremely simple and uses modern 
signing. Minisign, from Frank Denis, the libsodium guy, brings the same 
design to Windows and macOS; it has bindings for Go, Rust, Python, 
Javascript, and .NET; it’s even compatible with Signify.

What do you think?

Shade and sweet water!

	Stephan

-- 
| Public Keys: http://fsing.rootsland.net/~stse/keys.html |

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#5622

From"qmi (list)" <lista@miklos.info>
Date2019-07-20 21:40 +0200
Message-ID<ym3n3-vO-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5621
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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5623

FromIain Grant <iain@panfantastic.co.uk>
Date2019-07-20 22:10 +0200
Message-ID<ym3Q5-11J-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5622

[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
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5626

FromElmar Stellnberger <estellnb@gmail.com>
Date2019-07-21 21:20 +0200
Message-ID<ympxf-61e-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5623

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

Why do you think that TwoFish is bad? It was invented by Bruce Schneier 
and was in the last round of the AES competition. I believe it to be the 
better choice than AES.

Am 20.07.19 um 21:41 schrieb Iain Grant:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:lista@miklos.info>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5627

FromIain Grant <iain@panfantastic.co.uk>
Date2019-07-21 23:40 +0200
Message-ID<ymrIJ-7i1-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5626

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

I must have picked that up somewhere I didn't check when I was younger and
just took it as fact leading to fail :(  Sorry!

I am not a cryptographic expert - IANACE??

Iain

On Sun, Jul 21, 2019 at 8:11 PM Elmar Stellnberger <estellnb@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Why do you think that TwoFish is bad? It was invented by Bruce Schneier
> and was in the last round of the AES competition. I believe it to be the
> better choice than AES.
> Am 20.07.19 um 21:41 schrieb Iain Grant:
>
> 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
>>
>>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5624

FromMalte <malte@wk3.org>
Date2019-07-21 16:50 +0200
Message-ID<ymljY-3h7-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5622
lista@miklos.info transcribed 1.4K bytes on 20-Jul-2019 21:25:
> 
> 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:

"defaults to" and "supports" are two different words with two different
meanings. GnuPG's history is full of new features getting developed
while insecure defaults being kept.

I think, before moving to something completely new, like signify,
moving to something like Sequoia PGP (https://sequoia-pgp.org),
might be a good first step, as it fits better with the already
existing infrastructure 🤷


Sincerely,

Malte

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5625

Fromqmi <lista@miklos.info>
Date2019-07-21 18:30 +0200
Message-ID<ymmSJ-4kq-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5624
Hi

On 7/21/19 4:34 PM, Malte wrote:
> lista@miklos.info transcribed 1.4K bytes on 20-Jul-2019 21:25:
>> 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,
>> ..."
>>
>>
>> "defaults to" and "supports" are two different words with two different
>> meanings. GnuPG's history is full of new features getting developed
>> while insecure defaults being kept.

Thanks for pointing out. Correct, I was not specific enough. GnuPG 
*defaults* to AES-128 when using symmetric encryption according to its 
manual page. In practice, it appears to be using AES-256. I would be 
surprised if the GnuPG version shipped by the most developer-friendly 
Linux OS on the planet defaulted to a 64-bit block cipher. Perhaps an 
earlier version of GnuPG did default to CAST5 block cipher, as Wikipedia 
article states.

qmi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5629

FromPieter le Roux <pgp@myleroux.net>
Date2019-07-25 10:00 +0200
Message-ID<ynGPn-53U-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5621
Good idea! Change something because it works!
Any change we can make it part of systemd?

My emoticon for being sarcastic:
OO|OO

On 19/07/19 11:34 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> Hi!
>
> 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.
>
> 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
> OpenBSD uses to sign packages. It’s extremely simple and uses modern
> signing. Minisign, from Frank Denis, the libsodium guy, brings the
> same design to Windows and macOS; it has bindings for Go, Rust,
> Python, Javascript, and .NET; it’s even compatible with Signify.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Shade and sweet water!
>
>     Stephan
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5630

FromVolker Birk <vb@pep-project.org>
Date2019-07-25 15:30 +0200
Message-ID<ynLYK-8nL-7@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#5629

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

On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 06:31:34PM +1200, Pieter le Roux wrote:
> Good idea! Change something because it works!

Hi,

there is sqv from Sequoia PGP:

https://sequoia-pgp.org/

Yours,
VB.
-- 
Volker Birk, p≡p project
mailto:vb@pep-project.org
https://pep.software

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.security

csiph-web