| 1 |
W dniu śro, 04.07.2018 o godzinie 09∶49 +0200, użytkownik Kristian |
| 2 |
Fiskerstrand napisał: |
| 3 |
> On 07/04/2018 09:22 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
> > + c. ECC |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> Likely should not blanket accept ECC for various reasons. For one thing |
| 7 |
> the curves we likely would want to accept are not standardized, so you |
| 8 |
> have interoperability issues. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> The hardware situation is improving somewhat on these, so that is less |
| 11 |
> of a concern now than back in the day. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> But there aren't really very strong arguments in favor of ecc, and in |
| 14 |
> the case of quantum computation there less protection offered from ecc |
| 15 |
> due to smaller key sizes. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> We also keep gnupg 1.4 in tree that does not, and will not, support ecc. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Well, we have developers using ECC (Curve 25519, to be specific). |
| 20 |
I don't really know enough about this to judge but we either need to |
| 21 |
allow at least this, or convince those devs to change to RSA. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Would one of the following wordings be better: |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
a) ECC, Curve 25519[, ...] |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
b) ECC, curves supported by GnuPG version ... |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Alternatively, do you have other suggestions? |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
Best regards, |
| 33 |
Michał Górny |
Archives