Ingo Klöcker kloecker at
Thu Mar 17 21:06:35 CET 2011

On Wednesday 16 March 2011, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:15:45AM +0100, Johan Wevers wrote:
> > Op 15-3-2011 21:32, Ben McGinnes schreef:
> > > That's probably a worthwhile discussion to have.  Even if RFC1991
> > > support is maintained, there's still value in migrating encrypted
> > > data to more robust algorithms.
> > 
> > Only if IDEA gets broken (or the pgp 2.x implementation of it turns
> > out flawed) or, very unlikely, 128 bit can be brute-forced in the
> > future.
> On that day it would be well to already know what to do about it and
> already have the tools in hand.


> It would be best to have already done so.

I'm not so sure about this. Migration requires decryption of the 
encrypted data. This introduces an attack vector that does not exist if 
you keep the data encrypted with IDEA.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20110317/bd875bc6/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list