On 08/10/2016 03:19 PM, Samuel Thibault wrote:
> Ian Jackson, on Wed 10 Aug 2016 13:45:05 +0100, wrote:
>> Adam D. Barratt writes ("Re: use long keyid-format in gpg.conf (Re: Key
>> collisions in the wild"):
>>> [explanation]
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> I don't know what side of this (one) line such a proposed gpg change
>> falls. I still think it's unsatisfactory that our stable release has
>> a default behaviour which cannot be used safely.
>
> Well, I'd argue that 64bit IDs are not safe either, they have not been
> made to be.
Can we even consider key fingerprints safe in the long run? AIUI they
are SHA1 hashes of the public key, and while there isn't a feasible
preimage attack on SHA1 _yet_ (and we shouldn't panic), there's a
reason why SHA1 is discouraged by experts.
Regards,
Christian
