1997-06-23 - Re: New PGP signatures

Header Data

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
To: cypherpunks mailing list <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>
Message Hash: 9c07052bfa11caa967c2933b16e9952136f637d7b81da1fca9233958f13ca17f
Message ID: <97Jun23.173902edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
Reply To: <Pine.3.89.9706231057.A3379-0100000@netcom22>
UTC Datetime: 1997-06-23 21:45:23 UTC
Raw Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:45:23 +0800

Raw message

From: tzeruch@ceddec.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 1997 05:45:23 +0800
To: cypherpunks mailing list <cypherpunks@Algebra.COM>
Subject: Re: New PGP signatures
In-Reply-To: <Pine.3.89.9706231057.A3379-0100000@netcom22>
Message-ID: <97Jun23.173902edt.32257@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Lucky Green wrote:

> On Mon, 23 Jun 1997, Rick Osborne wrote:
> > bennett_t1@popmail.firn.edu wrote:
> > >some asshole forgot to make PGP 5.0 freeware RSA key-generating
> > 
> > Okay, silly question here, but what's to stop someone from adding that
> > capability once the source is available?  (And if they knew they were going
> > to publish the source, why not just add the capability in the first place?)
> Because there is no reason for PGP to enourage people to generate new
> RSA/MD5 keys when MD5 is about to go downhill.

They could have supported RSA/SHA if they wanted to.  They also put 3DES
and IDEA support as options in the manual (but not in the freeware or
tryit versions that I can see).

I hope the international generic version - after it is scanned and
modified - has many useful "upward compatible" options which will refuse
to interoperate with the commercial windows/mac version. 

And then someone can write an interoperability spec and the next version
of everything will talk to everything else.