Subject: Re: Some thoughts on a v5 key and why it shouldn't be a mess

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 10:52:05 -0800

On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 09:11:31 -0800 David Shaw 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

[...]

> the v5 key idea.

>It's
>more of a "design v5 in 2005, because we need it a few years from
>now".  

[...]

>Anyway, this is a starting point.  

>suggestions

as long as it's a new key type anyway,
can it be made to somehow work-around the 160 limit of the DSA,
for DH/DSA keys ?

vedaal

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

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

Promote security and make money with the Hushmail Affiliate Program: 
http://www.hushmail.com/about-affiliate?l=427

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 14:44:05 -0500

> can it be made to somehow work-around the 160 limit of the DSA,

No.  This would break compatibility with v4 keys where the 160-bit
limit still exists.

If/when a new DSA is defined with different semantics, OpenPGP can
support that in addition to the current DSA, but the new DSA cannot
replace the old one.  Either way, it's not really a v5 specific thing,
as a new DSA can just as easily be used in v4 (again, without
replacing the current DSA).

David

---

From: Ian G <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 21:16:59 +0000

>replacing the current DSA).

Yes, I agree.  DSA is quite highly defined, better
to leave it alone and suffer its shortfalls for now.
Some time in the future, NIST will design a DSA-2,
and that can be added.  For now, if DSA is considered
too dodgy then RSA could be used.

iang

-- 
News and views on what matters in finance+crypto:
        http://financialcryptography.com/