Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

12

If Bob does NOT care to check signatures (as in the question), Eve can send ANY message she wants to Bob pretending to be Alice, including but not limited to messages Eve got from Alice; all Eve needs is Bob's public key (which, as the name implies, is assumed public knowledge thus known to Eve) and straight use of PGP. Therefore the right question is: Can ...


6

OpenPGP as defined by RFC 4880 knows two different encodings. Binary encoding Obviously, there is no reasonable limitation to an (ASCII) character subset in binary encoding. Radix 64 Radix 64 is also often entitled ASCII armored. In the end, it is a base64 encoding with a checksum. The content may consist of [a-zA-Y0-0+/=]. ASCII-armored OpenPGP ...


5

There are a few pitfalls: File name integrity: signing files one at a time signs the contents of the files. It (typically) does not protect the file names from tampering. This could be disastrous in some situations (e.g. an attacker could change blacklist.txt to whitelist.txt). Set membership integrity: signing individual files does not prevent adding or ...


3

I think I found an answer in this thread: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gnupg/users/65236 In short: There is a packet which looks like a key revocation but it could be forged. If an OpenPGP application downloads the key from the server then it does a signature check.


2

openssl rsa -pubin -inform PEM -text -noout < public_key.pem Public-Key: (64 bit) Modulus: 16513720463601767803 (0xe52c8544a915157b) Exponent: 65537 (0x10001) The modulus is small enough that you can easily factor it After finding the prime factors, you can calculate the private exponent After you have the private exponent, you raise each 64-bit block ...


2

When creating a signed and encrypted PGP message, you only use your own keypair in the signing phase -- it's not used when encrypting the message (that only uses the recipient's public key). The recipient uses their own keypair only to decrypt the message, not to verify the signature. The two keypairs don't interact at all; that's why they don't have to be ...


2

There are no known-plain-text-attacks known for the symmetric encryption protocols used by OpenPGP with the OpenPGP CFB mode in use, so you can safely rely on it. In the end, the very first few bytes of OpenPGP packets are generally rather easily guessable by design, as they usually introduce a compression-packet and literal (data) packet with either very ...


2

You cannot encrypt a file with a private key. With RSA, that's not because of any technical obstacle (with other schemes private keys literally are not valid inputs to the encryption function), but because private keys are designated as "private" and using them in an encryption operation compromises the security of that message. To prove you wrote the ...


1

Yes, this could be done. It would be easy to implement and use this in a way that would be horribly insecure (e.g. with too short a passphrase, and not enough key stretching), but if used carefully, it could even be secure. Basically, what you'd do would be: Generate a secure passphrase, e.g. a sequence of randomly chosen words. This can be done ...


1

The inventors of the Supersingular Isogeny Key Exchange, Defeo, Jao and Plut have posted some code on GITHUB at: https://github.com/defeo/ss-isogeny-software/ There is also a paper on implementation of this key exchange by some people from the University of Waterloo. Their paper is "Efficient Implementations of A Quantum-Resistant Key-Exchange Protocol on ...


1

PGP [1024-bit] digital signature vs SHA256 HMAC Comparison... First, you can compare asymmetric and symmetric algorithms. A 1024-bit asymmetric key provides about 80-bits of security. A SHA256 HMAC provides about 128-bits of security. With all other things being equal, the HMAC is stronger. Second, I believe PGP (or is it GnuPG) uses Lim-Lee primes and ...


1

Questions like these are hard to answer because who can predict what the future holds, right? That said, there are some things I wanted to share. Prefer symmetric cryptography over public-key cryptography. Prefer conventional discrete-log-based systems over elliptic-curve systems; the latter have constants that the NSA influences when they can. From NSA ...


1

A revocation certificate is a self-signature with signature type 0x20. It only says anybody with access to the private key has revoked it, you cannot distinguish between the real owner and an attacker that got hold of the private key. You can read the details of what a revocation certificate contains by executing gpg --list-packets ...


1

As mentioned this is a very broad question, so please forgive me for not going into any great depth on each point. There are a few ways to beat encryption. One way is to attack the actual math of the cryptography: for PGP that would involve cracking RSA, which would involve finding a way to solve the discrete log problem. This is the hardest method, but ...


1

Signing files individually will create independent signatures for the contents (not filename) of each file. A potential downfall here is that the items could be removed or renamed without detection. Let's say, for example, the files to be signed are alice-invoice, bob-invoice, and chris-invoice. If each file is individually signed, and bob-invoice is ...


1

You can use the Web tool pgpdump, available at this address http://www.pgpdump.net/ or the same tool ( http://www.mew.org/~kazu/proj/pgpdump/en/) to install on your pc. This latter is to use if you are poking with your real secret key. At the moment I don't remember if the tool outputs in hex or dec, but you can easily convert to your favourite Base ...


1

GPG is an implementation of OpenPGP, which is a higher level protocol than e.g. mcrypt. So use GPG for PGP compatibility and mcrypt or related libraries for more direct - lower level - access to algorithms. AES is Rijndael for a block size of 128 bits and the 128, 192 or 256 bit key sizes. So you are OK there. Learn about modes of operation and something ...


1

This procedure, also called signing a message, does not encrypt the message itself, thus does not ensure it cannot be read by others. Instead, a hash sum of the message is encrypted using the private key. For verifying, the recipient again calculates the hash sum of the message, and decrypts the hash sum calculated by the sender using the sender's public ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible