Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.security > #5625
| From | qmi <lista@miklos.info> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.debian.security |
| Subject | Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced? |
| Date | 2019-07-21 18:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ymmSJ-4kq-15@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <ylzyF-7vw-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ym3n3-vO-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <ymljY-3h7-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
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
Back to linux.debian.security | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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