On Wed, Jul 29, 2026 at 09:09:34AM -0400, Robert J. Hansen via Gnupg-users wrote: > > Thanks for the clarification. Are dsa1024 signatures also SHA-1 > > signatures? > The short answer is "not necessarily, but very much usually". > > DSA involves doing some complicated math on a 160-bit value. There's no > hard requirement the value be generated by SHA-1, and GnuPG/PGP 5+ > provides RIPEMD160 as an alternative, but in reality hardly anyone uses > RIPEMD160.
Thanks. I guess this helps explain why some of the signatures listed by --check-sigs as usable were dsa1024, while others were unusable. My dsa1024 signature is listed as usable on other people's keys, so I guess that means my key doesn't use SHA-1? Walt
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
