On Wed, 1 Apr 1998 nospam-seesignature(_at_)ceddec(_dot_)com wrote:
Also some note that V4 RSA key ids are valid and different from V3.
i.e. Same Key, different ID.
Right now, I have RSA as V3, and DH/DSS as V4. It is one of the remaining
things I should do is add RSA to V4 and relegate the V3 to my pgp 2.6.2
subset.
Having started the implementation, there are a few problems.
In the V4 section it says "With RSA keys, the MPI bit count prefix... is
not encrypted...". So you are using old V3 style encryption. But you
will probably be using 3DES to encrypt the secret key itself, so it would
be incompatible.
Why not, for V4 keys, treat RSA MPIs just like DSA or DH MPIs?
I also have a problem with Key v.s. Subkey packets. I use DH keys for El
Gamal signing. Do they belong in a key or subkey packet? What about an
RSA key used for both?
How about something like:
A Key packet MUST be able to be used for signing and MUST be used to sign
all subkey information.
A Subkey packet MAY be used for siging.
Either MAY be used for encryption if an algorithm is defined for the type.
In effect, a two level hierarchy. I can use a very secure signing key for
the Key Packet, but use a faster, shorter, (disposable?) signing subkey.
The high security key would be used for all the UserID stuff, etc. and
define the particular online persona, with the subkeys being used as
desired.
I don't know if this was the full intent, but if it is not signing v.s.
encryption (so an RSA key would have to appear as both) this is the most
obvious next choice - primary and secondary.
Another note: A Subkey MAY??? MAY_NOT??? appear under more than one Key.
--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---