On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 05:02:21 -0600, John Clizbe said:
> I don't know that "extended the standard" is the language I'd use. More to
> the point would be "second guessed the IETF OpenPGP WG". Did they even
> meet at last week's IETF meeting? The current draft, rfc2440bis-12,
> expires in May of this
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Johan Wevers wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Now that PGP 9 beta seems to have extended the standard to allow non-160 bit
> hashes to be used with DSA keys, isn't it time for GnuPG to do the same,
> especially after the recent attacks on SHA-1? I know it's agains
On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 15:17:01 +0100 (MET), Johan Wevers said:
> Now that PGP 9 beta seems to have extended the standard to allow non-160 bit
> hashes to be used with DSA keys, isn't it time for GnuPG to do the same,
Their beta seems to use a truncated hash; it is not intended
behaviour.
> And whi
Hello,
Now that PGP 9 beta seems to have extended the standard to allow non-160 bit
hashes to be used with DSA keys, isn't it time for GnuPG to do the same,
especially after the recent attacks on SHA-1? I know it's against the
standard, but the expansion of the standard is pretty straightforward a
