IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] V5 Fingerprint again

Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl> Thu, 02 March 2017 08:05 UTC

Return-Path: <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
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 A28511294A7 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:05:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.334
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.334 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=inurbanus.nl
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 COJn1lrYurYh for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ua0-x22a.google.com (mail-ua0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c08::22a]) (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 AC2DA12941E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:05:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ua0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id 72so67794449uaf.3 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:05:01 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=inurbanus.nl; s=google-inurb; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=zF0dtZJvFOphDygkjR05pA1rNsTtlo//74iP2dy0XLA=; b=PFINVsR6ehNDo+RJij2Qn9b00/HP24uLqkCakDjEJahsZ2/DK+mvLS4zjneF3W4fGk bgvXDfAXbN2tesrVfJyuGrTNs+iu3QDxBCMDdJnPBWCkoBaYXw+iq/sSHKoYJ//hZeMP S7ShnKPv2eXaw0qp5YI8O935/eBsfGFNqJdhM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zF0dtZJvFOphDygkjR05pA1rNsTtlo//74iP2dy0XLA=; b=oqcu1c8Vu3b4XVa9qezNllUW5y6hRksJTE6de8H9yNKMcry2PSauZkuYuAUvVtGXox JKIGJZkrVcnR0OfRM03uyXwfZwzHKnR/oQOwCb1tmIOn6cw1e38bsaT9RYWypw+guRSw Y+gAiooBILAVkhMtEbbFEet7AKIaD7Tm+Ai23OU0fTEWBUpheXsLPLy4kaIB733kATnL B7vPz/AIw7/ReVrJdKBWi55LN8AYnK0lvYoMdqWev7kgCFJi1xErFVWLAzbHqppgrZYS hSjBwytoX99CLerUsL2212xKw2IId6KQiLGRd5u4kxHKVPaQvXW1/63J/6HrBNQRRqVe 7g4g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39kCBpe9LZQPvxJtUCvN2jSe8ZaM65q6L0+ahnKCDEKmbmd5hYedP0Ptbr+H+YbKpZOgIVc63Ci+XZTE9A==
X-Received: by 10.31.83.66 with SMTP id h63mr2583014vkb.72.1488441900440; Thu, 02 Mar 2017 00:05:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.103.102.3 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Mar 2017 00:05:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <00cc01d292cf$1578a780$4069f680$@sixdemonbag.org>
References: <CAMm+Lwju5i5xHt=ma6Ush4_4dfZNwOi2=2km+6Qja+sDbkvbxg@mail.gmail.com> <CADGaDpFoBt1=eZHxo4q=Yb24NYyy1sudFn_h=MTZE3_wiRVXJw@mail.gmail.com> <87lgsoah35.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <00cc01d292cf$1578a780$4069f680$@sixdemonbag.org>
From: Thijs van Dijk <schnabbel@inurbanus.nl>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 09:05:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CADGaDpHHKR-rL1ALG7S3yw2rGkjprFiSt+L9KfYQXfdymPh1Cg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Robert J. Hansen" <rjh@sixdemonbag.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114e5a54beb7db0549bae28d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/WceZJ2SqxeBh7PArzchs_1CroBU>
Cc: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>, 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: Thu, 02 Mar 2017 08:05:04 -0000

On 1 March 2017 at 22:02, Robert J. Hansen <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> wrote:

> > > 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.
>
> Deprecation is not the same as obsoleting.  Deprecation doesn't break
> existing signatures; it just says new signatures MUST NOT use SHA-1.
>
> It sounds as if you're agreeing with the deprecation suggestion.  Or am I
> badly misunderstanding something?


Sorry if I wasn't clear before; I meant what Werner said.

-Thijs

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email