Johan Wevers wrote:
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
- And even from a cryptographic point of view this wouldn't make sense
(as far as I know), as currently hashfunctions are the weak point of the
whole system.
That depends on what you consider important. Hash functions are only used
for signing; for encryption, currently the 256 bit algo's are the strongest.
Yes and no,...
(btw: The strongest has should have 512 (SHA512), or am I wrong?)
It is true that you don't directly use hash functions when encrypting data.
But you need it indirectly too.
If you encrypt to another key,.. your implementation is going to check
the validity of that key (either you've signed/certified it yourself or
via some trust-path). And these certificates are "bound" to the hash...
Ok,.. you could argue that one use its key for local encryption only,..
but perhaps one should use other tools for that task...
Chris.
begin:vcard
fn:Mitterer, Christoph Anton
n:Mitterer;Christoph Anton
org:Munich University of Applied Sciences;Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
adr;quoted-printable;quoted-printable:;;Lothstra=C3=9Fe 34;M=C3=BCnchen;Freistaat Bayern;80335;Federal Republic of Germany
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
tel;home:+49 89 24409568
tel;cell:+49 172 8617341
x-mozilla-html:TRUE
url:http://fhm.edu/
version:2.1
end:vcard
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
