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

Re: PGP/GnuPG unsecure, should be replaced?



Hi

On 7/21/19 4:34 PM, Malte wrote:
lista@miklos.info transcribed 1.4K bytes on 20-Jul-2019 21:25:
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,
..."


"defaults to" and "supports" are two different words with two different
meanings. GnuPG's history is full of new features getting developed
while insecure defaults being kept.

Thanks for pointing out. Correct, I was not specific enough. GnuPG *defaults* to AES-128 when using symmetric encryption according to its manual page. In practice, it appears to be using AES-256. I would be surprised if the GnuPG version shipped by the most developer-friendly Linux OS on the planet defaulted to a 64-bit block cipher. Perhaps an earlier version of GnuPG did default to CAST5 block cipher, as Wikipedia article states.

qmi



Reply to: