Charles Franklin Bernard wrote:
>> > So I added another subkey, 2048-bit, but the customer says GPG is
>> > looking for a 2048 subkey *by itself*. Does that make sense?
>>
>> Not especially. Subkeys don't exist in isolation. They only exist as
>> part of a larger key.
>>
>> Your customer's reque
David Shaw wrote:
>In short, no. Your customer is confused. GPG does not require any
>particular key size. By default, it will generate 2048-bit keys, but
>it will work quite happily with 1024-bit, 4096-bit, or whatever you
>feel like using.
I remember the pgp 2 code having a limitation to 16k
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Charles Franklin Bernard wrote:
> "By itself" meaning a key without any other subkey. They want us to
> generate a new public key with only one subkey, and that at 2048-bit
> instead of 1024.
I'd ask them to explain why they think this is required by
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 09:58:28PM -0700, Charles Franklin Bernard wrote:
> New to list; first post.
> We send member companies our 1024 bit public key with its 1024-bit
> subkey to encrypt their A/R files before they're FTP'd to us. A new
> customer is requesting we generate a new key for them th
> So I added another subkey, 2048-bit, but the customer says GPG is
> looking for a 2048 subkey *by itself*. Does that make sense?
Not especially. Subkeys don't exist in isolation. They only exist as
part of a larger key.
Your customer's request doesn't appear to be particularly well-phrased.
Charles Franklin Bernard wrote:
> A new customer is requesting we generate a new key for them that has
> a 2048 sub key, claiming GPG requires this by default.
GnuPG defaults to 2048 bits for new RSA and El Gamal keys. (It may
default to 2048 for DSA now, as well; if so, this is a new addition i
