Re: Ok, what about PGP (was: MD5 collisions)

On 29 May 1996 19:03:04 pdt, wlkngowl@unix.asb.com wrote:

>I poked around the pgp.h and pgformat.txt files in the PGP 2.6.2
>distribution.  There *are* designator bytes for the hash (and cipher)
>algorithms, hash size, etc.
>
>It seems quite doable to add support for SHA-1 signatures (and possibly key
>generation for encrypting secret keys?).
>
>Adding 3DES (and maybe Luby-Rackoff-SHA, assuming it hasn't been cracked
>recently at the Fast Software Conf.... more info?!?) would be nifty too...
>unless, of course, there's meaning to the Real Soon Now that PGP3 folx
>claim.

How about a NSA-stomper option that would use all-of-the-above? For the truly paranoid (or 
owners of Pentium-Pro 200Mhz multi-processor machines

Also, what's the verdict on IDEA? Is there a switch yet that would allow straight RSA? 
(with the obvious speed decrease...)

>I'd work on the hack now (and just might...) but I'm stuck stranded in the
>United States. :(
I've always wondered what it says about a country that is afraid to let its citizens work 
on privacy... 
/* From Chris Adams <adamsc@io-online.com> on a Warped PC running a proudly unregistered (for now) PMMAIL 1.5!
The Enigman Group - We do Web Pages! */

This Message Was Sent With An UNREGISTERED Version Of PMMail.  
Please Encourage Its Author To Register Their Copy Of PMMail.  
For More Information About PMMail And SouthSide Software's Other 
Products, Contact http://www.southsoft.com.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

On Thu, 30 May 1996, Chris Adams wrote:

> On 29 May 1996 19:03:04 pdt, wlkngowl@unix.asb.com wrote:
> 
> >I poked around the pgp.h and pgformat.txt files in the PGP 2.6.2
> >distribution.  There *are* designator bytes for the hash (and cipher)
> >algorithms, hash size, etc.
> >
> >It seems quite doable to add support for SHA-1 signatures (and possibly key
> >generation for encrypting secret keys?).
> >
> >Adding 3DES (and maybe Luby-Rackoff-SHA, assuming it hasn't been cracked
> >recently at the Fast Software Conf.... more info?!?) would be nifty too...
> >unless, of course, there's meaning to the Real Soon Now that PGP3 folx
> >claim.
> 
> How about a NSA-stomper option that would use all-of-the-above? For the truly
> paranoid (or 
> owners of Pentium-Pro 200Mhz multi-processor machines

Using 3DES and SHA does not decrease speed that much (it may even be faster).
Both of them are very secure algorithms.

> 
> Also, what's the verdict on IDEA? Is there a switch yet that would allow straight RSA? 
> (with the obvious speed decrease...)

Why would you want to use straight RSA?  IDEA is as strong as a 3000-bit RSA
modulus.  So far, the only known way to crack IDEA is to brute-force the key
space.  RSA relies on the fact that it is assumed to be difficult to factor
large numbers.  If an efficient way is discovered to factor very large moduli,
then RSA is basically worthless.

- -- Mark

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
markm@voicenet.com              | finger -l for PGP key 0xe3bf2169
http://www.voicenet.com/~markm/ | d61734f2800486ae6f79bfeb70f95348
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point."
                -- Friedrich Nietzsche


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3
Charset: noconv

iQCVAwUBMbB/n7Zc+sv5siulAQHJuQP/dxToToctPbfjBQE7j1sjO214kVK9TtLX
9mwRuoDppxVhMPATr3k7tdlw+COFPOQZgf0bog+RpCW+iTjlmug6tr56rkTRdUod
AJ0mR11MfQ6yNasPz81WxQracdc48ZXBFEaZYBKFCZRVAoK434dVM3slBtNVCvOn
znHMlt+W9yU=
=fvbq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----