fwd: What good is this really going to be?
steve at xemacs.org
Sat Dec 5 04:20:19 CET 1998
brian moore <bem at cmc.net> writes:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 1998 at 07:34:40PM -0500, John A. Martin wrote:
>> Do the dire RNG warnings below arise because the kludge RNG is used
>> when signing a file or just because a gpg compiled with the kludge was
> Hrrrm... You do need a random number (160 bits) for DSA signatures.
Sigh. O.K. Thanks for the response. Unfortunately that pretty much
eliminates any use we have for gnupg until something gets fixed for
>> From Applied Crypto: "If Eve ever recovers a k that Alice used to sign a
> message, perhaps by exploiting some properties of the random-number
> generator that generated k, she can recover Alice's private key, x."
> So, yes, the warning is there for a reason.
> You should be able to sign with PGP5 and have GPG verify it though.
> It's not fully free, but it's better to be safe.
There isn't a version of PGP5 I particularly trust or have tested, but
I suppose that's what we'll have to use.
More information about the Gnupg-devel