Confusion with signature digest type.
wk at gnupg.org
Thu May 2 11:48:54 CEST 2013
On Thu, 2 May 2013 06:48, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said:
> thinking of these problems, and if-and-when Werner and g10 Code decide
> to shift the default behaviors I'm certain it will be towards a stronger
> hash algorithm.
We always tried to make sure that new algorithms are deployed for a long
time before we make them the default. The next big change will be the
switch to ECC and we not even have a real GnuPG release with. I expect
that in a few years we can/need to switch to ECC and with that the end
of signing SHA-1 digests will have come. Given that you need to create
a new key anyway, the hash algorithm will be a non-brainer then.
The special cases which Daniel constructed are, well, special cases and
not the common use of signatures. People designing such a system should
really consult with an expert to come up with a proper plan on how to
implement that system. And that plan should include a discussion of
used algorithms and threat models.
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gnupg-users