IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Wed, 15 April 2015 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF7E1AD36C for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.278
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.278 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 9LkjVWlJ1wdn for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22f.google.com (mail-la0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22f]) (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 8EB9A1ACE9D for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by laat2 with SMTP id t2so21068273laa.1 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=J5+wT72dAAPZ1TGVA8R9uYFZM1eoTUyR98isnLXfctM=; b=0KN1Tnv9OmpymkrEATxHGOuqU6GiPIPUKW/6laqcF/iHFgnPyp6eVdwkL1Te0NhjR/ xgAKGwvSKEp/Wnf68mwSD7KUko4h0+uKnOw405lnts3Huu+X3htduDdzxw3GVT5IN9RJ m2W2T7Elv+MbMWWIlvyxTXp9CvYvvRAG+lp9ORFOI0ga3H901tMidvb5i/jSct9ayYeY ToOzX3m0Ad3YOmYp6vUbQrxoYAuIR2QZDFi0ydAgB9SqrOQoP/EfrFmpEvv3DFq0r4zq 80sfC70PvF5kt2cG6o4xJVAr6c9shvnHxPoTm/B0OSBFqBztRCTNLXgvDWTDhYJXg8CP TWvA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.198.225 with SMTP id jf1mr20777345lbc.91.1429058172109; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.147.165 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Apr 2015 17:36:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <552C03CF.3020001@iang.org>
References: <CAMm+LwhbB+-MnGRBCvprgAGOuu+5CJ2rgod7EBGOQR5UNVrspQ@mail.gmail.com> <87y4m0ozlt.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <sjmk2xkf2t8.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CA+cU71=M2JzBkJXgUYCgp=Q=0c_7UuZWY14myA6cpMRwKt+Hjg@mail.gmail.com> <87sic4jwzx.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <1428939645.12460.1.camel@scientia.net> <CAMm+LwigZ2raZDdBQ1CLdUE0iuhfnBvTj6M=5bWHkGdxXcYG_w@mail.gmail.com> <552C03CF.3020001@iang.org>
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 20:36:11 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 1HOk-oEvNjttDW5sDoKpCHNePz0
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwg_1HfPQZy8W7b5KhOBbuz1aZUBSUBanHsTp=ZkJAUO7Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: ianG <iang@iang.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Y31pC1NJxOBOkb_6oR5DX7AttHo>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 15 Apr 2015 00:36:15 -0000

On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 1:58 PM, ianG <iang@iang.org> wrote:
> On 13/04/2015 18:32 pm, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
>
>> Given the way fingerprints are used, there is an intense pressure to
>> use a single algorithm for everything. That is why I think that we
>> should pick either SHA-2-512 or SHA-3-512 and truncate as necessary.
>
>
>
> If SHA-2-512, then I'm happy to truncate as necessary.
>
> If SHA-3, it is a sponge function internally so it is designed to do the
> "truncation" or rather "expansion" already and it'd be a shame not to use
> that feature directly.

It makes no difference to the security and requires specific features
most libraries are unlikely to support. Digging in to the internal
functions of crypto algorithms is very much to be avoided.

Besides which, it loses the convenience of small fingerprints being
the first few digits of a long one.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email