IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] V5 Fingerprint again

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Wed, 01 March 2017 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <wk@gnupg.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D4FE71298B5 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:22:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DaKmP8V-L0JK for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [IPv6:2001:aa8:fff1:100::22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BCDF0129891 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Mar 2017 12:22:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.84_2 #1 (Debian)) id 1cjAlm-00068H-52 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:22:42 +0100
Received: from wk by wheatstone.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.84 #3 (Debian)) id 1cjAfG-000487-Pn; Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:15:58 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
References: <CAMm+Lwju5i5xHt=ma6Ush4_4dfZNwOi2=2km+6Qja+sDbkvbxg@mail.gmail.com> <CADGaDpFoBt1=eZHxo4q=Yb24NYyy1sudFn_h=MTZE3_wiRVXJw@mail.gmail.com>
Organisation: The GnuPG Project
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: url=https://k.gnupg.net/80615870F5BAD690333686D0F2AD85AC1E42B367
Mail-Followup-To: Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>, Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 21:15:58 +0100
In-Reply-To: <CADGaDpFoBt1=eZHxo4q=Yb24NYyy1sudFn_h=MTZE3_wiRVXJw@mail.gmail.com> (Thijs van Dijk's message of "Wed, 1 Mar 2017 20:41:45 +0100")
Message-ID: <87lgsoah35.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=Abbas_counter_terrorism_advisors_Janet_Reno_Khaddafi_fissionable_Nor"; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/1pTuO91G4kSL8XQ9_3RGXRdu5a4>
Cc: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>, IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] V5 Fingerprint again
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2017 20:22:45 -0000

On Wed,  1 Mar 2017 20:41, schnabbel@inurbanus.nl said:

> 1) Should we deprecate SHA1 in signatures? (Or did we already?)

This would break all existing signatures for no good reason.  Instead a
new v5 key format MUST NOT be used with signatures "weaker" than
SHA-256.

It is up to an implementation to decide what to do with old keys and
signature material.  The question is related to the old question what to
do with an expired or revoked signature key: are all signatures are then
suddenly untrustworthy or is there enough external context which allows
to decide that the signed document is still intact?


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email