Subject: Re: IDEA in v3-v4 conflict (was Re: OpenPGP at IETF-59 Draft Minutes #1)

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 09:58:38 -0800

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 08:59:52 -0800 Ian Grigg <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Florian Weimer wrote:
>> David Shaw wrote:

>> I'm all in favor of ignoring PGP 2 completely.
>
>
>Gets my vote as well.
>
>
>> Keep in mind that PGP 2 is unsupported software with known security
>> flaws and rather unclear licensing conditions.
>
>
>Also, small user base, and rather
>expensive development ramifications.
>
>PGP 2 was good when it was good, but
>I think it's time to move on.

even as a long-time dedicated pgp 2 user,
i sort-of have to agree with all of you here ;-(

those of us who still want/insist on using pgp 2, 
will continue to do so,
(and not as small a group as you imagine,
especially if you count all the remailers),
and don't really care about any of the open-pgp specs,
as it doesn't affect pgp 2 to pgp 2 usage

(i recently had an experience where i sent a signed and encrypted pgp
message to someone
{a fairly well known academic cryptographer who uses *only* pgp2.x, }
who sent my message back, unread, because the version line was later
than 2.x, with a note to re-send it in 2.x, even though the message was
*completely* 2.x compatible )

it is unfair to have Open-PGP standardizers and developers, bend over
backwards to accommodate pgp 2.x for users who don't really need or appreciate
it, 
and whose crypto usage will remain largely un-affected,
while hindering advancements that might benefit everyone else ...

{that said, many of us are still holding on to our v3 keys,
at least till all the subkey signing issues are resolved ;-) }

vedaal

Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2004 14:44:04 -0800

> at least till all the subkey signing issues are resolved ;-) }

Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.

Derek and I went through the issues from Seoul this afternoon, and 
that's resolved now. A draft should come out soon -- he's going to post 
some things about the remaining open issues where there's no text.

Does this mean you think I should strip out all V3 keys now? I'd be 
happy to put out an interim draft RSN to just put a nail in V3 keys as 
you suggest. :-)

	Jon

(In case it's not clear, I really am joking)

---

From: Ian Grigg <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2004 08:42:31 -0500

> (In case it's not clear, I really am joking)

I for one don't understand the joke - maybe I'm
just a humourless old bastard, or, maybe our Java
implementation, which is a bit stuck at "nearly
done," for lack of funds.  Cryptix OpenPGP lacks
PGP 2 support, and will probably always lack PGP 2
support, because there just isn't any real economic
sense in it.

Dropping support in the standard for old stuff would
seem to be a boon to all future implementations.
Those that wanted to support the old ways still can,
there is no suggestion that they have to drop
support, nobody ever said you can't over do the
support aspects.

Still, standards are meant to be used by developers,
not the other way around.  If the RFC calls for V3
support, it's easy enough to ignore that part and
not achieve conformity.

iang

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:39:06 -0800

> just a humourless old bastard,

The joke is that he offered, if we put in signature subkeys to stop 
using V3 keys, and I complied.

The joke is that I don't *really* expect him to give up his V3 key.

Ian, I think you're doing the right thing not supporting V3 keys.

The biggest flaw in PGP 2 is that it is not fatally flawed. If there 
were some horrible bug in PGP 2, we could all demand that people give 
up their V3 keys, and even just drop them. Alas, PGP 2 is indeed pretty 
good, and therefore it is hard to get people who believe it to be 
divine revealed wisdom to change their mind; we can only tease them 
until they get tired of hearing it.

Future protocol designers should learn from this experience and make 
sure that their early revisions have some massive security flaw so that 
it's easier to get people to upgrade to the revised version.

	Jon

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Mar 2004 10:23:56 +0100

> until they get tired of hearing it.

We could publicize more the user ID spoofing issue.  But it's probably
not extreme enough for most people to care.

-- 
Current mail filters: many dial-up/DSL/cable modem hosts, and the
following domains: atlas.cz, bigpond.com, freenet.de, hotmail.com,
libero.it, netscape.net, postino.it, tiscali.co.uk, tiscali.cz,
tiscali.it, voila.fr, wanadoo.fr, yahoo.com.