On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 5:40 PM, David Shaw <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ah, thanks. So I'd should be 254 for better security of the private key, >> right? > Yes. See http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076.pdf for the attack that > prompted this extra layer of protection. Ah,.. interesting,.. thanks for that pointer.
>> Uhm, I just wanted to follow the recommendation of the RFC ;-) > The RFC says "If interoperability is not an issue, the new packet > format is RECOMMENDED." Given that interoperability *is* an issue > (GPG works with PGP 2.x), we don't use the new packet format except > when necessary. Ah,.. ok so to support older applications. Good decision. Uhm what happens if one of these older implementations sees a packet type above 15? Do they give a warning? Or is there something similar to the critical bit? >> But there is probably no function in gnupg to do this conversion, is >> it? > No, but you could patch it if you liked. Take a look at the > write_header() and write_new_header() functions in build-packet.c Thanks for that info,.. but you're right and it's probably better to stay with the compatible-mode. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
