On 10/1/2011 9:01 AM, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Digital_Signature_Algorithm#Sensitivity
This is an argument against having a *bad* DSA implementation, in the
exact same way you shouldn't use a bad RSA implementation, either. RSA
has just as many warning
On 01/10/11 18:51, brian m. carlson wrote:
> Point being, both DSA and RSA have their good and bad points, and if
> you're fairly confident that you have a good PRNG, such as /dev/urandom,
> then there's not really much concern about k. After all, you also need
> a good PRNG for CFB IVs as well, a
On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 07:01:14AM -0600, Aaron Toponce wrote:
> Having a sufficient amount of paranoia, would keep you from using DSA, I
> would think.
I have an RSA key with RSA subkeys, but now that larger DSA keys are
generally available, I'd be okay with revolving DSA signing subkeys. As
you
