Re: [openpgp] Disadvantages of Salted Signatures

Andrew Gallagher <> Sat, 09 December 2023 10:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25473C14F5FD for <>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 02:48:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.107
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cF0bpUKXpgvA for <>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 02:47:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 489FCC14F747 for <>; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 02:47:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (Client did not present a certificate) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BC2C5ED73; Sat, 9 Dec 2023 10:47:56 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=andrewg-com; t=1702118876; bh=oWUEf7d4aTCNomBgC2BawOZG0rI7l2JC/Zktl2RMHG8=; h=From:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:To:From; b=nhJwb/vXsvySeBnjVOZSX+AWuuaAcVP26vuJGF1f5sSg8pXrXvLYbR6Bhz8B3fDCd sW+cgpMj/BXBaa6oNvoL3Xj5Uzsv9PVS1SjbS2xj+BNvEVlmPgON997cDJhrnxBgWN akoqgQXUMNd2YSEJFVU0+aavTYue5d+95fyP3vyQUvgau/U/dnWYgHEfV9Zg7/k6dz XwKcwQgPzTs64yud/DlIfrU6LhoJ4T7mtW5gPZ/bQHHzlTbqprPyvXd/2BuOsWxd14 HqNm/f5qV5ip7MgJKQyuQNW2FsS7tYnWmhd66i5xqPyUq7CRQhCJ2yDjTK0TcN00Ax WacsXugn4gsvg==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Andrew Gallagher <>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 10:47:44 +0000
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Stephan Verbücheln <>,
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21B101)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Disadvantages of Salted Signatures
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2023 10:48:04 -0000

I’m not going to contest the central argument here as I don’t have the background knowledge, but on one minor point, I have a niggle:

On 9 Dec 2023, at 09:05, Stephan Verbücheln <> wrote:
> It further requires the victim to sign the same data over and over
> again, which is not realistic in a practical scenario on the PGP layer
> because the timestamp will be different for each signature. There is no
> point in signing the same data with the same timestamp over and over
> again because it will always have the same result.

Strictly speaking, an action being pointless does not mean that it will not happen. One could imagine an automated system, say a notary service, being coerced into making a large number of identical signatures, even down to the timestamp.