"Robert J. Hansen" <r...@sixdemonbag.org> writes: > And this is where I part ways with you. There is no reason not to bump > key length up to 4096. There is also no reason not to use SHA512 with a > DSA-1k key, for instance. Sure, only 160 bits of SHA512 will be used, but > that's not a reason not to use it. It's not as if you're making the system > weaker.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but it does make your key weaker, right? -- PGP: A0E4 B2D4 94E6 20EE 85BA E45B 63E4 2BD8 C58C 753A PGP: 2C23 EBFF DF1A 840D 2351 F5F5 F25B A03F 2152 36DA
pgpHfARSxPs33.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
