add subkey vs generate new set?

Werewolf werewolf6851 at
Fri Oct 17 16:19:53 CEST 2008

Hash: SHA1

I was just wandering, as I did use the 'default' settings for the key
creation. But that was 4 years ago :)

The info at the time if I remember right went on 1024 was more on the
'higher' side of the processor abilities etc lol

- --

  Skype: Werewolf6851
===== Instant Messenger Accounts ======
 Yahoo: lover_of_lycra
   ICQ: 304325894
   MSN: lover_of_lycra at
   AIM: LycraloverWolf
 GPG key 76E6C1BC with following fingerprint
D508 2C9D B3A9 2F0E E472  95A8 2D8C B9E6 76E6 C1BC
Inara: "You could always pray they make it back safely."

Book: "I don't think the captain would much like me praying for him."

Inara: "So don't tell him. I never do."
				--Episode #2, "The Train Job"

David Shaw wrote:
> On Oct 16, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Werewolf wrote:
>> Another Pondering as every year need bigger bit sized keys to be secure
>> Benefits and Cons
>> Wondering if adding a bigger encryption/signing sub keys to current key
>> on keyserver leaves the benefit keeping the same finger print? So don't
>> have inform all your corresondences to get a new key from you?  They
>> just have --refresh their public keyrings
>>  Over
>> Just setting old key to expire and Generate a new set, collect
>> signatures again, change info on web pages and/or bussiness cards?
> It depends on how many signatures you have.  If you have none, or just a
> handful that could be easily gotten again, then it doesn't matter much. 
> Otherwise, there is a real benefit to adding subkeys to your existing key.
> It is not true, though, that you need continually bigger keys to be
> secure.  You just need (somewhat) bigger keys than the current best
> attack to be secure.   The default size in GPG is 2048, which is
> extremely safe.  When in doubt, use the default.
> David
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Portable Thunderbird version (20080914)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -


More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list