RSA 4096 ridiculous? (was RSA 1024 ridiculous)
Robert J. Hansen
rjh at sixdemonbag.org
Wed Jun 20 19:09:23 CEST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> What I was trying to do was bring a real world perspective to
> this question. Are you using PGP 8? Do you know anybody who
> is using PGP 8?
Yes and yes.
I far prefer PGP 8.1 over PGP 9.0+, and I've heard comments from many
other users who say likewise. The thing which is killing PGP 8.1 is
its lack of support for creating SHA256 messages, not its age.
> Since PGP 8 was released in December 2002 and nothing has been
> done with it for 4-1/2 years now, it is getting pretty long in
Many people still use PGP 6.5.8, which dates back to pre-2000.
> PGP Corporation is up to at least PGP 10.x the last time
> I checked (last year).
PGP 9.6 is the latest.
Robert J. Hansen <rjh at sixdemonbag.org>
"Most people are never thought about after they're gone. 'I wonder
where Rob got the plutonium?' is better than most get." -- Phil Munson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users