Decryption problem

[Johan Wevers]

Werner Koch wrote:

> Don't let Ascom know this.  They even require license fees when IDEA
> is used by charities.

I doubt they will go after all pgp 2.x users.
 
> There is a reason for displaying the message
>   "Experimental algorithms should not be used"

I commented thaat message out in the gpg source code, together with the ones
about deprecated algorithms... :-)

> the identifiers used to describe the algorithjms are not standard and
> there will be interoperabilty with other implemenations or versions of
> a software.

I know, but I guess that someone using it will not change the identifiers by
hand.
 
> > 2.x compatibility is required since some of my correspondents use 2.x
> > versions and I don't want to force them to upgrade. However I consider
> > changing to a pgp 5 compatible key because the MD5 algorithm is not really
> > considered safe anymore. Being compatible when just using conventional
> 
> That is simply not true.

What is simply not true?

> There is an evidence that in the near future
> the calculation of collisions may be done on regular basis and
> therefore you should not use it in DL signature algorithm, because
> this could compromise your secret key.

When using a pgp 5 compatible key I use SHA-1, that's OK I thought?

However, encrypting messages is far more important to me than signing.

> One solution for the PGP 2 compatibilty is to tweak PGP 2 to use CAST5
> instead of IDEA:

Would that be stronger in combination with the MD5 hash in pgp 2?

> If you have such a PGP 2 you can still use
> your RSA keys there is no need to worry about the IDEA patent.

I don't worry about patents anyway.

-- 
ir. J.C.A. Wevers         //  Physics and science fiction site:
johanw@vulcan.xs4all.nl   //  http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/index.html
Finger johanw@xs4all.nl for my PGP public key.  PGP-KeyID: 0xD42F80B1