Mailing List Archive: Blowfish160 and OpenPGP

>>>>> "Werner" == Werner Koch <wk@isil.d.shuttle.de> writes:

Werner> Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au> writes:
>> feedback" by Yvo Desmedt, Yair Frankel and Moti Yung. It was published in
>> IEEE Infocom '92, pages 2045 - 2054. They present two multi-receiver

Werner> Let's see whether it is in my digital IEEE subscription.

>> the 180K+ public keys that the keyservers have on file are PGP2.x
>> - basically, if you have to do your own thing, do it.

Werner> I'll try to stick to OpenPGP as long as it does not make too much
Werner> hassle.

Ain't killing Blowfish160 too much hassle?

Mind you, I don't know much about all this... but I wonder whether we
really have to be OpenPGP compliant in all respects.

I seem to recall 'GNU is compatible, but also more powerful' or
something.

Can't we make up some format that is a superset of OpenPGP?

I really don't like OpenPGP to make some (potential... beneficial?)
features of GPG impossible (illegal?).

--
Jürgen A. Erhard eMail: jae@laden.ilk.de phone: (GERMANY) 0721 27326
My WebHome: http://members.tripod.com/~Juergen_Erhard
SPACE: Above And Beyond (http://www.planetx.com/space:aab)
Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- raster@rasterman.com

"Juergen A. Erhard" <jae@laden.ilk.de> writes:

> Ain't killing Blowfish160 too much hassle?

No and already done.

> Mind you, I don't know much about all this... but I wonder whether we
> really have to be OpenPGP compliant in all respects.

It is good to have standards and the latest draft has most of the
stuff I wanted.

> I seem to recall 'GNU is compatible, but also more powerful' or

Sure it will be :-)

> Can't we make up some format that is a superset of OpenPGP?

We have some extensions which are not defined by OpenPGP but possible
by the old RFC1991 - a part of OpenPGP is that is is open for
extensions; the problem is that there is not yet a way defined to add
new algorithm identifiers to the standard. I'm sure that we find a
way to address such issues in a "open" way.

> I really don't like OpenPGP to make some (potential... beneficial?)
> features of GPG impossible (illegal?).

Goal is to be OpenPGP compliant as far we are not violating the GPL.
BTW: We need a 3DES implementation.

Werner