On Thu 2016-02-25 09:50:57 -0500, Kristian Fiskerstrand
<kristian.fiskerstr...@sumptuouscapital.com> wrote:
> Well, it depends. Sure, should always use full fingerprint for
> certificate validation etc, no question asked. But the internal keyid
> and the packet structure use 64 bit keyid as identifier
I consider it a bug that GnuPG uses the 64-bit keyid as the internal
identifier, and that the packet structure uses the 64-bit keyid as well.
there's simply no justification for "saving those bits" on any modern
hardware. We shouldn't embed the assumption that these limits will be
permanent in our documentation.
> so using fingerprint in quite a number of other cases is more resource
> intensive without necessarily improving too much (in particular in
> cases where action from yourself is required, default key for signing
> etc).
Why is it more resource intensive? the user will be copying and pasting
this string one way or another, we should have them copy/pasting
something cryptographically strong, not something that is marginal and
only getting weaker with time.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
