3 ms·
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 implementatio
by 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 agoAlso 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 agoGitHub definitely supports it. I've been using an Ed25519 key for about a year now.
- arianvanp 7y agoAre you sure you're talking about GPG and not SSH? I just tried again and it did not work
- zaarn 7y agoThen 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 agoI 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.