faramir.cl at gmail.com
Wed Dec 15 00:37:07 CET 2010
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
El 14-12-2010 15:12, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> On 12/14/10 12:42 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
>> They could be a result of using the old Cyber Knights Templar versions
>> of PGP that cropped up in the mid-'90s which allowed creating 16Kb keys.
> What tool was used really doesn't interest me very much -- you can
> create them with GnuPG, too, if you're willing to tweak the source a
> little bit. What I find morbidly fascinating is contemplating what kind
> of deranged individual would actually do this. :)
Well, somebody could think "if they made a 256 bits symmetric algo,
there should be a reason for that. And since if the asymmetric key is
broken, the message is decrypted, no matter how strong is the symmetric
algo, then it makes sense to use something equally strong".
Now I think about it, AES-256 would be also an overkill, and the only
reason why we don't think it is a bad idea, is because we don't notice a
reduction in performance (with "normal usage") compared with AES-128.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users