IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Followup on fingerprints

Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse> Fri, 31 July 2015 18:54 UTC

Return-Path: <look@my.amazin.horse>
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 DF6B51B2F37 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:54:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 51cxd5KlMgtG for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mugenguild.com (mugenguild.com [5.135.189.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7F611ACC89 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:54:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (p5481C3F2.dip0.t-ipconnect.de [84.129.195.242]) by mail.mugenguild.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 868CE5FC53; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:50:49 +0200 (CEST)
References: <CAMm+LwgTcn8CY+Zk-f9gzXQtMJezG97T+kx2=C7PR5g7zFer_A@mail.gmail.com> <87twsn2wcz.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de> <CAMm+LwgRJX-SvydmpUAJMmN3yysi4zzGSpO2yY4JAMhD-9xLgQ@mail.gmail.com> <87zj2ecmv8.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <CAMm+LwgKmcTes=V7uS3MjCQixWCo-i7PY=VE7eCHSqt3Ho3OSg@mail.gmail.com> <87a8udd4u6.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <sjm61503182.fsf@securerf.ihtfp.org> <CAMm+LwgEVySpfL-iN2uzX-4tu7R+isDkHE9D8uAeLTxxd4VxqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
In-reply-to: <CAMm+LwgEVySpfL-iN2uzX-4tu7R+isDkHE9D8uAeLTxxd4VxqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 20:54:43 +0200
Message-ID: <87k2tg6tu4.fsf@littlepip.fritz.box>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/v-U0-JPbUZ3V9kWOIAonLnlJDVY>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>, Derek Atkins <derek@ihtfp.com>, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Followup on 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: <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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 18:54:52 -0000

On 31 Jul 2015, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
> I think a 25 character / 125 bit fingerprint is going to be
> fine. BUT there are two issues I don't want to come up. One is
> someone builds something that depends on the fingerprints being
> collision resistant and blames it on the spec. The second is that
> some yahoo works this out again in five years time and writes a
> paper claiming to have 'broken' the spec.

We can just mention that fingerprints are not (meant to be) collision
resistant in the spec, that should take care of that.

 - V

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email