Why a subkey?
Mike - EMAIL IGNORED
m_d_berger_1900 at yahoo.com
Mon Feb 26 23:23:31 CET 2007
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 19:55:58 +0100, Sven Radde wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen schrieb:
>>> If so, why was (sign and encrypt) not offered as an option?
>> Having one key that can be used for both signing and encryption
>> operations is thought by some to be bad crypto policy. The problems
>> with it appear to be mostly theoretical, though.
> If you use "gpg --expert --gen-key", it will offer the selection:
> (7) RSA (set your own capabilities)
> This lets you choose a key which can be used for signing and encrypting.
> Anyway, if there's a question "Why a subkey?", its partner-question
> would be: "Why not?"
> cu, Sven
Thanks four your "-expert" suggestion. While I would consider
myself a "-novice" with regard to gpg, it is, perhaps, something
I should try. Your "Why not?" question is another matter. If you
are employed, I suggest you try it on your manager next time you
are required to justify a costly idea.
More information about the Gnupg-users