private key language

nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Wed, 28 December 2005 09:32 UTC

Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErXfe-0006nR-Te for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:32:34 -0500
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13562 for <openpgp-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:31:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97je3067609; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS97juA067597; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f
Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97fPA067481 for <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org)
Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6639B2B47CC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100
To: OpenPGP <ietf-openpgp@imc.org>
Subject: private key language
Message-ID: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: nagydani@epointsystem.org
Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-openpgp-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
List-ID: <ietf-openpgp.imc.org>

There's another issue I would like to see cleared up. Right now, I think the
private key format is overspecified. This is especially important, since the
format in the specification has known weaknesses.

I think, it should be ultimately up to each implementation how they store
private keys and it does not affect interoperability. It should be made
clear that private key packets are intended only as an export-import format
and that additional security measures (such as enclosing the whole thing
inside an integrity-protected encrypted packet) are recommended, when
transfering private keys.

-- 
Daniel