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

Groups > linux.debian.security > #5622

Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?

Show all headers | View raw

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