Problems with private keyring?

Taral taral at
Thu Mar 22 23:01:03 CET 2001

On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 10:44:25PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> Their attack doesn't work with these checks in place.  However, there
> are other attacks which involve modifying public DSA parameters.  I'm
> not a cryptanalyst and I've just started reading about DSA (and
> already decided that I don't like it at all, especially the OpenPGP
> incarnation), so I'm not in the position to claim that a specific set
> of consistency checks is safe or not.  Releasing a patch which is
> solely based on consistency checks would imply such a statement.

Agreed. (Nothing's wrong with DSA so long as you can ensure that k is
unrecoverable.) This is why I believe that it would be better to simple
sign the key materian _in toto_, thus providing protection equal to that
of a public key.

Taral <taral at>
Please use PGP/GPG to send me mail.
"Never ascribe to malice what can as easily be put down to stupidity."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 248 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20010322/89091d91/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list