Fingerprint algorithm and SHA-1 usage
nicholas.cole at gmail.com
Sat Dec 22 13:39:43 CET 2012
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Nicholas Cole <nicholas.cole at gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I can see, and based solely on listening to experts on this
> list, there is no pressing technical reason to change - but for PR
> reasons, I think I would be happier if some sensible new fingerprint
> were agreed.
> But I do NOT favour a solution that will burden users with having to
> check needlessly[*] long fingerprints, or carry around barcode
> scanners and the like!
> Best wishes,
> [*] for real-world, non-paranoid, "pretty good" privacy.
Just writing the above made me wonder, though. Perhaps we could
tolerate longer fingerprints if they were presented in (eg.) Base 32
rather than in Hex. Perhaps any new proposal should consider that.
More information about the Gnupg-devel