4 ms·

Thanks for the great post! However, I discourage the usage of RSA with 4096 bit as it does not offer any substantial security over RSA with 2048 bit. The mean i

by sbrass 7y ago

Thanks for the great post! However, I discourage the usage of RSA with 4096 bit as it does not offer any substantial security over RSA with 2048 bit. The mean idea behind the "No-4096-bit" is nicely explained by GnuPG people themselves, https://www.gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#no_default_of_rsa4096 https://www.gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#no_default_of_rsa40.... Therefore, wouldn't it be more efficient to use elliptic curve cryptography, i.e. ED25519, if you want that extra bit of security? It's included in GnuPG since version 2.1.0 released in November 2014 - at least in an experimental state.

NilsIRL 7y ago
As suggested by the [release notes](https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html#ecc https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html#ecc), not many PGP implementations support ECC.
- arianvanp 7y ago
  Also GitHub doesn't support it. The website just crashes with "An unknown error has occured" when you try to upload an ECC key for gpg
  - patrickmcnamara 7y ago
    GitHub definitely supports it. I've been using an Ed25519 key for about a year now.
    - arianvanp 7y ago
      Are you sure you're talking about GPG and not SSH? I just tried again and it did not work
- zaarn 7y ago
  Then you can't verify it unless you upgrade, but I think it's an acceptable price that those pay who run older versions.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  > not many PGP implementations support ECC What other PGP implementations are relevant to interoperate with in 2020? Who still uses PGP, but doesn't use GPG? And why?
- sbrass 7y ago
  I would have agreed then, in 2014, maybe, one or two years later, completely with GnuPG's statement on ECC support. I cannot state whether any of the other open-source and free projects on encryption have advanced to ECC, however, I would expect most of them have so far. Independent of the ECC support in other programs than GnuPG, I think to advance to the newest, but stable and well-tested, security measures (ECC), would be a good idea and will pay of in the future? I expect, of course, to advance to the newest stable versions will, at some point, introduce regressions with older versions (or platforms). But I think that is a price we should be willing to pay.

by sbrass 7y ago

NilsIRL 7y ago

As suggested by the [release notes](https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html#ecc https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html#ecc), not many PGP implementations support ECC.

arianvanp 7y ago
Also GitHub doesn't support it. The website just crashes with "An unknown error has occured" when you try to upload an ECC key for gpg
- patrickmcnamara 7y ago
  GitHub definitely supports it. I've been using an Ed25519 key for about a year now.
  - arianvanp 7y ago
    Are you sure you're talking about GPG and not SSH? I just tried again and it did not work
zaarn 7y ago
Then you can't verify it unless you upgrade, but I think it's an acceptable price that those pay who run older versions.
JoshTriplett 7y ago
> not many PGP implementations support ECC What other PGP implementations are relevant to interoperate with in 2020? Who still uses PGP, but doesn't use GPG? And why?
sbrass 7y ago
I would have agreed then, in 2014, maybe, one or two years later, completely with GnuPG's statement on ECC support. I cannot state whether any of the other open-source and free projects on encryption have advanced to ECC, however, I would expect most of them have so far. Independent of the ECC support in other programs than GnuPG, I think to advance to the newest, but stable and well-tested, security measures (ECC), would be a good idea and will pay of in the future? I expect, of course, to advance to the newest stable versions will, at some point, introduce regressions with older versions (or platforms). But I think that is a price we should be willing to pay.