Hi Tony,
one way to make progress (here on the mailinglist) is to split up
unrelated topics into single issues, so everyone can dig deeper,
if needed.
From your posts I focus on the KDF for symmetric encryption.
(I believe other concerns have been answered, at least I've seen answers,
if not ple
Hi Steffen,
Am Samstag 01 Oktober 2022 18:23:19 schrieb Steffen Nurpmeso:
> Highly disturbing to me are such poisoning emails like you write
> continuously.
please be respectful and try to assume best intentions.
> The software you talk about is classified to be
> used by governments to some e
TL > I was pleased to receive a rapid response from Werner Koch, who
explained that the nominated count_value of 1024 actually used a default
count_value compatible with gpg 1.4, and then went on to explain that
OpenPGP used an SHA1-based Key Distribution Function (KDF).
Jacob B > KDF here is
Tony Lee via Gnupg-users wrote:
[...]
I was pleased to receive a rapid response from Werner Koch, who
explained that the nominated count_value of 1024 actually used a default
count_value compatible with gpg 1.4, and then went on to explain that
OpenPGP used an SHA1-based Key Distribution Funct
Tony Lee wrote in
:
|On Aug 27 I submitted a query to this mailing list on the same Subject
...
|The concept that no thought may be given within gpg to the protection of
|passwords, and that deprecated cryptographic functions may be in use
|(despite commands to the contrary), seems to me t
On Aug 27 I submitted a query to this mailing list on the same Subject
as headed here, with further details on the software used.
Specifically, I timed the encryption (primarily the KDF aspect) of
alternative cleartext_files with various legal count_value values (1024,
131072, 2097152, 6501171
Am Dienstag 30 August 2022 18:41:19 schrieb Tony Lee via Gnupg-users:
> By "full entropy" I assume you mean an assessed entropy of 80--120
> bits. Although in principle I agree, in practice it is very difficult
> to produce such randomness
Generating passphrases from a large dictionary makes this
First: I am impressed, and honoured, to have had a fast response from
Werner.
I vaguely understand your explanation that the 1024 "Count" value was
interpreted for backward compatibility with 1.4. However, according to
the info gpg, I had followed their instructions in asking for some
specific alg
On Sat, 27 Aug 2022 16:17, Tony Lee said:
> Count User Time (s)
> 1024 0.237
For backward compatibility reasons with 1.4 the default count value is
used in this case. The default value is computed by gpg-agent and
depends on your machine (cf. gpg-agent's --s2k-ca
Very interesting question indeed, Tony!
On 8/27/22 15:17, Tony Lee via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I have recently been seeking assurances on protection of sensitive
> data on my SuSE Leap 15.4 system, and protection of passwords.
>
> Issues discussed concern gpg2 2.2.27-150300.3.5.1, and keepassxc
> 2.7
I have recently been seeking assurances on protection of sensitive
data on my SuSE Leap 15.4 system, and protection of passwords.
Issues discussed concern gpg2 2.2.27-150300.3.5.1, and keepassxc
2.7.1-bp154.3.3.1; together with hypothetical queries on Youbikey as
libykpers-1-1 1.19.0-4.19.
Prote
11 matches
Mail list logo
