On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:32:52 +0100, Adam Back wrote: [snip]
Also I understand, though there appears to be no available documentation saying as much, that pgp3.0 will not use RSA, nor IDEA, nor MD5, using instead El Gamal for public key encryption and signatures, 3DES (unsure?), and SHA1.
Can someone confirm that PGP3.0 will use ElGamal? Bert-Jaap
Bert-Jaap <E.J.Koops@kub.nl> writes:
On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:32:52 +0100, Adam Back wrote: [snip]
Also I understand, though there appears to be no available documentation saying as much, that pgp3.0 will not use RSA, nor IDEA, nor MD5, using instead El Gamal for public key encryption and signatures, 3DES (unsure?), and SHA1.
Can someone confirm that PGP3.0 will use ElGamal?
Note that part of my above post is now in need of revision as a result of comments I received from that post. PGP 3.0 will, it seems, still be able to verify (and maybe even generate too?) RSA signatures, and decrypt RSA encrytped email. So the "will not use RSA" above is incorrect. Adam -- print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<> )]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`
hi,
Also I understand, though there appears to be no available documentation saying as much, that pgp3.0 will not use RSA, nor IDEA, nor MD5, using instead El Gamal for public key encryption and signatures, 3DES (unsure?), and SHA1.
Can someone confirm that PGP3.0 will use ElGamal?
The PGP 3.0 code that I've been working on has support for: IDEA, 3DES MD5, SHA1 RSA, DSS, ElGamal It does not discontinue support for the PGP 2.6.2 algorithms. It adds support for new ones. -derek
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Derek Atkins wrote:
hi,
Also I understand, though there appears to be no available documentation saying as much, that pgp3.0 will not use RSA, nor IDEA, nor MD5, using instead El Gamal for public key encryption and signatures, 3DES (unsure?), and SHA1.
Can someone confirm that PGP3.0 will use ElGamal?
The PGP 3.0 code that I've been working on has support for: IDEA, 3DES MD5, SHA1 RSA, DSS, ElGamal
It does not discontinue support for the PGP 2.6.2 algorithms. It adds support for new ones.
Absolutely outstanding.
-derek
-- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Derek Atkins wrote:
The PGP 3.0 code that I've been working on has support for: IDEA, 3DES MD5, SHA1 RSA, DSS, ElGamal
It does not discontinue support for the PGP 2.6.2 algorithms. It adds support for new ones.
Absolutely outstanding.
I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA. --Lucky
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Lucky Green wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Derek Atkins wrote:
The PGP 3.0 code that I've been working on has support for: IDEA, 3DES MD5, SHA1 RSA, DSS, ElGamal
It does not discontinue support for the PGP 2.6.2 algorithms. It adds support for new ones.
Absolutely outstanding.
I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA.
Personally, I'd prefer it if crypto applications had wide support, user selectable, for as many methods as possible. I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not available in any form I know of.
--Lucky
-- Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures Finger for Public Key Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern Vote Monarchist Switzerland
I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not available in any form I know of.
What do you mean? 3DES ships with Stronghold, and will ship with C2Net's other products as well. -- Sameer Parekh Voice: 510-986-8770 President FAX: 510-986-8777 C2Net http://www.c2.net/ sameer@c2.net
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not available in any form I know of.
If you mean symmetric keys of >128 bits, the consensus of the experts is that even 128 bits are uncrackable by anyone's standard. --Lucky
At 10:43 pm -0500 11/13/96, Lucky Green wrote:
I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA.
Speaking of patent-free, :-), can you do blind signatures without RSA? Cheers, Bob Hettinga ----------------- Robert Hettinga (rah@shipwright.com) e$, 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "The cost of anything is the foregone alternative" -- Walter Johnson The e$ Home Page: http://www.vmeng.com/rah/
Robert Hettinga wrote: | At 10:43 pm -0500 11/13/96, Lucky Green wrote: | >I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I | >hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to | >DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA. | | Speaking of patent-free, :-), can you do blind signatures without RSA? Chaum has something called unanticipated blind signatures that don't use RSA. The problem with blinding is not the RSA patents. Those run out much sooner than Chaum's patents. Adam -- "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -Hume
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Robert Hettinga wrote:
At 10:43 pm -0500 11/13/96, Lucky Green wrote:
I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA.
Speaking of patent-free, :-), can you do blind signatures without RSA?
Yes, but you still need to license the blind signature patent itself. --Lucky
participants (8)
-
Adam Back -
Adam Shostack -
Bert-Jaap Koops -
Black Unicorn -
Derek Atkins -
Lucky Green -
Robert Hettinga -
sameer