cryptoanarchy.wiki

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

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

Header Data

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Message Hash: 2c493f12ba98867f447a4b97dc9fbcc4ff12c0e91eb3615ae550142981577477
Message ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961113224825.7335F-100000@polaris>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9611131930.A5464-0100000@netcom14>
UTC Datetime: 1996-11-14 04:52:18 UTC
Raw Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:52:18 -0800 (PST)

Raw message

From: Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:52:18 -0800 (PST)
To: Lucky Green <shamrock@netcom.com>
Subject: Re: PGP3.0 & ElGamal
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9611131930.A5464-0100000@netcom14>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961113224825.7335F-100000@polaris>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Lucky Green wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Black Unicorn wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Derek Atkins wrote:
> > > The PGP 3.0 code that I've been working on has support for:
> > > 	IDEA, 3DES
> > > 	MD5, SHA1
> > > 	RSA, DSS, ElGamal
> > > 
> > > It does not discontinue support for the PGP 2.6.2 algorithms.  It adds
> > > support for new ones.
> > 
> > Absolutely outstanding.
> 
> I agree. Support for soon to be patent free algrithms is a good thing. I 
> hope that in version 4.0, after the users had time to migrate to 
> DSS/ElGamal, PGP will fully move away from RSA.

Personally, I'd prefer it if crypto applications had wide support, user
selectable, for as many methods as possible.

I'm still mildly curious as to why support for >128 bit keys is not
available in any form I know of.

> 
> --Lucky
> 

--
Forward complaints to : European Association of Envelope Manufactures
Finger for Public Key   Gutenbergstrasse 21;Postfach;CH-3001;Bern
Vote Monarchist         Switzerland

Thread