On 10/08/16 15:19, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Jackson, on Wed 10 Aug 2016 13:45:05 +0100, wrote:
>> Adam D. Barratt writes ("Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key collisions in the wild"):
>>> [explanation]
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I don't know what side of this (one) line such a proposed gpg change
>> falls. I still think it's unsatisfactory that our stable release has
>> a default behaviour which cannot be used safely.
>
> Well, I'd argue that 64bit IDs are not safe either, they have not been
> made to be.
>
> Samuel
>
>
Upstream has introduced -keyid-format=none which shows the full fingerprint,
and then made it the default.
Issue: [default to --with-fingerprint, introduce --without-fingerprint]
https://bugs.gnupg.org/gnupg/issue2379
Commit: [gpg: Implement --keyid-format=none.]
http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commitdiff;h=b047388
Commit: [gpg: Use --keyid-format=none by default.]
http://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg.git;a=commitdiff;h=7257ea2
This seems much safer than 64bit IDs.
Maybe a backport of this is feasible?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature