IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints

Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net> Tue, 05 May 2015 23:48 UTC

Return-Path: <calestyo@scientia.net>
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 0FCFC1A89B1 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:48:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] autolearn=ham
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 3P2IjJ6PcXz5 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailgw02.dd24.net (mailgw-02.dd24.net [193.46.215.43]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4033E1A8967 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 16:48:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.27]) by mailgw02.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 200B65FB88 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 23:48:06 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net
Received: from mailgw02.dd24.net ([192.168.1.36]) by mailpolicy-01.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net (mailpolicy-02.live.igb.homer.key-systems.net [192.168.1.25]) (amavisd-new, port 10236) with ESMTP id H7Mm-Ar1Gn_W for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 23:48:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from heisenberg.fritz.box (ppp-188-174-18-198.dynamic.mnet-online.de [188.174.18.198]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mailgw02.dd24.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 May 2015 23:48:04 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <1430869683.28399.109.camel@scientia.net>
From: Christoph Anton Mitterer <calestyo@scientia.net>
To: openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 01:48:03 +0200
In-Reply-To: <871tiupupe.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
References: <CAMm+LwhbB+-MnGRBCvprgAGOuu+5CJ2rgod7EBGOQR5UNVrspQ@mail.gmail.com> <87d232lkb6.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <sjmlhhmakxp.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <871tiupupe.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="sha-512"; protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; boundary="=-vFuRacPrygMWx7bWGYwi"
X-Mailer: Evolution 3.12.9-1+b1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/pyJeg8l4A7N6leqDAJVloU1tkSw>
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: Tue, 05 May 2015 23:48:09 -0000

On Tue, 2015-05-05 at 23:26 +0200, Vincent Breitmoser wrote: 
> I would like to pick up on this point again: What's wrong with 160 bit
> fingerprints?  The bit length seems more than sufficient to cover any
> Mooreian doubts, a more relevant issue would be weaknesses in the
> hashing algorithm itself,
Hmm but if it can be easily done, is there anything that speaks against?

I think hashes up to 512 bit are still commonly "accepted" (even with
just hex encoding)... and I see no strong reason why we couldn't move to
e.g. RFC 4648 base32.
Actually others do similar things as well (e.g. OpenSSH).

And if it doesn't hurt, I rather go for the stronger, even if it should
never become necessary.


> where the status is that in its 20 years not
> even a collision has been found for SHA-1.
At least no one publicly known ;-)


Cheers,
Chris

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email