cryptoanarchy.wiki

Arise, you have nothing to lose but your barbed wire fences!

1996-11-14 - Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal

Header Data

From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
To: E.J.Koops@kub.nl
Message Hash: 04ff36a209334032fef3d63f9e02ead6b0d47cad367e262a9c9fcd51f183236f
Message ID: <199611131641.QAA00670@server.test.net>
Reply To: <A81C16F0582@frw3.kub.nl>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-14 00:01:32 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:01:32 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Adam Back <aba@dcs.ex.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 16:01:32 -0800 (PST)
To: E.J.Koops@kub.nl
Subject: Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
In-Reply-To: <A81C16F0582@frw3.kub.nl>
Message-ID: <199611131641.QAA00670@server.test.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Bert-Jaap <E.J.Koops@kub.nl> writes:
> On Fri, 25 Oct 1996 00:32:52 +0100, Adam Back wrote:
> [snip]
> > Also I understand, though there appears to be no available
> > documentation saying as much, that pgp3.0 will not use RSA, nor IDEA,
> > nor MD5, using instead El Gamal for public key encryption and
> > signatures, 3DES (unsure?), and SHA1.
> 
> Can someone confirm that PGP3.0 will use ElGamal?

Note that part of my above post is now in need of revision as a result
of comments I received from that post.  PGP 3.0 will, it seems, still
be able to verify (and maybe even generate too?) RSA signatures, and
decrypt RSA encrytped email.  So the "will not use RSA" above is
incorrect.

Adam
--
print pack"C*",split/\D+/,`echo "16iII*o\U@{$/=$z;[(pop,pop,unpack"H*",<>
)]}\EsMsKsN0[lN*1lK[d2%Sa2/d0<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<J]dsJxp"|dc`

Thread