Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2014 15:26:36 +0200
From: The Fuzzy Whirlpool Thunderstorm <whirlp...@blinkenshell.org>
To: Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com>;, gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: GPG's vulnerability to quantum cryptography
Message-ID: <20140707132636.ga64...@blinkenshell.org>
References: <mailman.12787.1404584465.28939.gnupg-us...@gnupg.org>
<20140706073605.ga65...@blinkenshell.org>
<53b95c75.5030...@vulcan.xs4all.nl>
<53ba6d66.5030...@digitalbrains.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <53ba6d66.5030...@digitalbrains.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)--RnlQjJ0d97Da+TV1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:50:30AM +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote: > Could you explain what you mean? I'm really getting the impression we're > talking about cracking an encryption key, and I don't see how revoking > such a key would help significantly for that. >=20 > Peter. I mean, to prevent private key compromise, it's a good practice to set an expiration date to your keys. So that, when the keys expire, you can generate better keys to prevent a probability that the old keys have been compromised. I don't say that this is the safest thing to do to prevent old data being decrypted. I'm pretty sure, when the quantum systems are publicly available, GPG will be updated with new algorithm to ensure key safety against such systems.
pgpZGOWle6h86.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
