So, I've tested this a bit more. Sometimes the public and private key IDs match when the passphrase is set and sometimes they dont match. Perhaps a bug?
Tankred Am 6. März 2012 11:42 schrieb Tankred Hase <[email protected]>: > So I've got a question regarding key generation in general. Is the key ID > for the public and private key supposed to be the same for each keypair? > Because they were (maybe by coincident) before the patch, and now they are > sometimes different. > > Tankred > > Am 6. März 2012 11:05 schrieb Tankred Hase <[email protected]>: > > Hi Sean, >> >> I've integrated your improvements and updated the crypto unit tests. It >> seems as though it's working quite well with passphrases... both key >> generation and decryption unit tests are working. Also there seems to be no >> decrease in performance. Great work, thank you :) >> >> Time taken for key generation [ms]: 8795 (2048 bit RSA keypair, >> passphrase "asdf") >> crypto_test.js:91 <http://localhost:8888/app/test/crypto_test.js>blob >> size [bytes]: 2589258 >> crypto_test.js:97 <http://localhost:8888/app/test/crypto_test.js>Time >> taken for encryption [ms]: 1659 >> crypto_test.js:99 <http://localhost:8888/app/test/crypto_test.js>blob >> cipher size [bytes]: 3511050 >> crypto_test.js:105 <http://localhost:8888/app/test/crypto_test.js>Time >> taken for decryption [ms]: 1762 >> crypto_test.js:109 <http://localhost:8888/app/test/crypto_test.js>decrypted >> blob size [bytes]: 2589258 >> >> Tankred >> >> >> Am 3. März 2012 11:33 schrieb Nils Kenneweg <[email protected]>: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Am 02.03.2012 16:35, schrieb Sean Colyer: >>> > I committed some code that includes better support for key >>> > Generation. One of the big things that was added is the addition of >>> > the passphrase argument. If no passphrase is provided, the key >>> > generation does the same as before. >>> > >>> > This is implemented using s2k type 254, salt+iter, which is the >>> > recommended option in OpenPGP standard. >>> > >>> > Also, all key generation in my testing has been updated to be >>> > fully compatible with GPG, which is important as well. >>> > >>> > Tankred -- I know you've been using key generation a bit, can you >>> > test this change out in your implementation? >>> > >>> > All others welcome to test as well. >>> >>> Awesome, I can finally start my first proof of concept for my project. >>> Thanks a lot!! >>> >>> Greets, >>> Nils >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32) >>> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ >>> >>> iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPUWbdAAoJECvXQ9f0b0HoLO4H+wQPV+efqOQSocbOV3iHQNBk >>> u3MX0cCU9UdI/sut7oU/Glet5Z1gcBpji1FL+iTpdraCcSJKUw1pQKF9T81vrakC >>> 1cuoFiTyykSH04uICfjcVEEmMl8dJv692gRjJjk7f0MVohBDEwSFD7gAKsDZ+q4k >>> ut6Kq8ajE0is1as9IUWxFSnTThI9oRL3nB99iFfy6HFUnmrs5BHZgouleqcNT2zq >>> XBoQfCfrwvXZlKKdFw3F0g/Uf3WTLfndJ04ZrkWamov3XDnlOdxzJkcJGXJPRLDT >>> 0uG+APcijoy+zR1Q8H0jETO0WXbzT1THixYlppXf9XxEQVEmVoIwpz5R31Q8Mbg= >>> =BiHX >>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> http://openpgpjs.org >>> >> >> >
_______________________________________________ http://openpgpjs.org
