On Tuesday, June 24, 2014 11:26:07 AM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org wrote:
For the records, GnuPG never supported keys larger than keys you can
create with GnuPG, which is for RSA 4096 bit. Largers keys may or may
not work.
I would like to state, for the record, that I -did- use GnuPG to create these
keys. More to the point, I used -stock- GnuPG (unmodified) to create my 16k
key. Specifically, I used batch mode to do so, as the menu-driven system had a
hard upper limit on key size. GnuPG -can- (or could, since I haven't tested it
recently) create RSA keys larger than 4096 bits in length, without any
modification.
I knew from the start that GnuPG does not countenance the use of key sizes
larger than 4k, and it is not my intention to re-open that debate. However, the
software worked. It worked to create the keys, and it worked to utilize the
keys. I didn't have to change anything in the code or re-compile anything with
new options. It just worked.
Also for the record, I mostly agree with GnuPG's decision re: the 4k limit on
creating new keys through the menu interface. It wasn't easy to figure out how
to create a large keypair with stock GnuPG, and that information is probably
best left obscure. But it could be done--and GnuPG worked with the resulting
keys normally. Now, GnuPG simply doesn't allow me to make signatures with the
large key any more.
Perhaps a large part of my frustration / confusion stems from a lack of
understanding. Obviously something changed between the version that worked and
the version that does not. I don't know enough to figure out what code changed
to impact this functionality, and I certainly don't understand why. From what
I've been able to tell, this is purely a matter of allocating more secure
memory, as if the allocation was reduced at some point. I don't know whether
this was part of the fix for CVE-2013-4576 (if so, why was this impacted?), or
if it was another code change rolled into the same update (if so, why the
reduction [if it was a reduction]?). Could you possibly shed some light on this?
p.s. A 16k key is actually the worst thing one can do and actually
decreases overall security.
I'm afraid I don't understand this at all. I do understand the arguments about
creating a false sense of security, the need to preserve compatibility with
low-power devices and older software, and etc., but I haven't heard anything
about why a 16k key is the worst thing one can do, such that it actually
decreases overall security. Could you please elaborate further?
-Lance
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
