[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?



2 fish... that in it's self is bad.  AES, sure lets all be ok about that.  

I also read the article and I realise I still rely on gpg far too much and that I need to ween myself off of it!


Iain

On Sat, Jul 20, 2019 at 8:33 PM qmi (list) <lista@miklos.info> wrote:
Hi,

On 7/19/19 1:34 PM, Stephan Seitz wrote:
> I found the following article about PGP/GnuPG:
> https://latacora.singles/2019/07/16/the-pgp-problem.html
>
> In short you should drop GnuPG because it doesn’t do anything really
> the right way. It should be replaced with different tools for
> different situations.

I checked that article. For e.g. the article says, "If you’re lucky,
your local GnuPG defaults to 2048-bit RSA, the 64-bit-block CAST5 cipher
in CFB, ..."

Wrong. The current implementation of GnuPG shipped by Debian Buster -
version 2.2.12 - does support modern cryptographic standards for
symmetric encryption, not only CAST5. For e.g., it does support twofish
and aes. Both of which use 128-bit block sizes, AFAIK. See command
output for gpg below about supported algorithms:

"

qmi@qmiacer:~$ gpg --version

gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.12
(...)
Supported algorithms:
Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ECDH, ECDSA, EDDSA
Cipher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH,
         CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256
(...)
"

So it's good enough, apparently.

>
> Debian is using GnuPG for signing files. From the article:
>
> Signing Packages
>
> Use Signify/Minisign. Ted Unangst will tell you all about it. It’s what

You may be right, though. That tool might have better bindings for
modern programming languages.

Regards,
--
qmi
Email: lista@miklos.info


Reply to: