| 1 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- |
| 2 |
Hash: SHA1 |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
Just some quick thoughts on this: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> 2. root key & signing subkey of EITHER: 2.1. DSA, 1024 or 2048 bits |
| 7 |
> 2.2. RSA, >=2048 bits |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
I don't really agree. From your own link |
| 10 |
(https://we.riseup.net/riseuplabs+paow/openpgp-best-practices#dont-use-pgp-mit-edu): |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
"Many people still have 1024-bit DSA keys. You really should consider |
| 13 |
transitioning to a stronger bit-length and hashing algo. This size is |
| 14 |
known now to be within Well Funded Organizations’ ability to break. |
| 15 |
Also the hashing algo is showing its age." |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Some more opinions from different studies: keylength.com. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
1024 DSA keys seem pretty short to me. Surely it might be inconvenient |
| 20 |
for some (2-3? please write a mail here!) people with smart cards. But |
| 21 |
then again, especially people going through the hell of using a |
| 22 |
physical token would understand the need for decent crypto. ;) |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
I think key rotation is overdoing it and pretty annoying. Better use a |
| 25 |
non-annoying, long key from the start? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> 4. If you intend to sign on a slow alternative-arch, you may find |
| 28 |
> adding a DSA1024 subkey significantly speeds up the signing. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
How slow is that actually? Does it make signing very inconvenient? |
| 31 |
Maybe someone with a slow machine can write about performance and the |
| 32 |
"annoyence-factor"... ;) |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Best regards, |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Craig |
| 37 |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- |
| 38 |
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) |
| 39 |
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
iEYEARECAAYFAlEkGjEACgkQuiczp+KMe7SkWACgrioKjFkuPwJOxUCmhGKcC4Ib |
| 42 |
uyQAmwUfM7u3x6sD1rmQJrEjjUu7C6ok |
| 43 |
=OyqH |
| 44 |
-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Archives