Dashamir Hoxha dashohoxha at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 08:27:57 CET 2016

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:56 PM, Andrew Gallagher <andrewg at andrewg.com>

> On 22 Mar 2016, at 22:10, Dashamir Hoxha <dashohoxha at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:21 PM, Peter Lebbing <peter at digitalbrains.com>
> wrote:
>> And why is your primary key capable of encryption? One of the reasons for
>> subkeys is so you don't have to use the same key material for both
>> encryption
>> and signing, since this opens up some subtle points of attack that are
>> easily
>> avoided.
> What is wrong with that? As long as there is a subkey for encryption, gpg
> will use the subkey for encryption, even if the primary key is capable of
> encryption.
> Please please for the love of all that is sweet and beautiful in the world
> don't make an encryption-usage primary key. If you ignore everything else
> Peter has said, please don't ignore this. There are no benefits whatsoever
> to making an E-usage primary key, and plenty of reasons not to. And unlike
> expiry dates which can be fixed later, once you have E enabled on a primary
> key you can't remove it without hacking the innards of the data structure.
> IMHO the only thing to do with E-usage primary keys is revoke them and
> start again from scratch. The only reason they are even still allowed in
> GPG is for backwards compatibility, right...?

I fixed it:
Is it OK to have a signing primary key? Is it useful?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160323/4c039072/attachment.html>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list