Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC

Anonymous (nobody@replay.com)
Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:20:22 +0100

• Next message: Mike Rosing: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Previous message: sibereye: "Encryption basics???"
• In reply to: Mail System Internal Data: "DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA"
• Next in thread: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Reply: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Reply: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"

>>This is a plug, but it's taken at the most opportune time I can imagine. If
>>PGP used elliptic curve PK you wouldn't have this problem. Your verification
>>can be regened by hashing your pass phrase.
>
>You can also do this with many DLP-based PKC's where x can be a hash of a
>passphrase.

Or even in RSA for that matter, seeding a deterministic prime-search
algorithm with the hash of the passphrase.

Or, in any system, simply publish your private key, encrypted with your
passphrase.

We went over all this already on one of the crypto lists. Elliptic curve
has no advantage in this regard. Using any of these methods will probably
significantly weaken your key, unless you have a much stronger passphrase
than most people use.

• Next message: Mike Rosing: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Previous message: sibereye: "Encryption basics???"
• In reply to: Mail System Internal Data: "DON'T DELETE THIS MESSAGE -- FOLDER INTERNAL DATA"
• Next in thread: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Reply: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"
• Reply: Ben Laurie: "Re: Death of PGP Key 0xFBAF5E44 at 19:03 02 Jan 1999 UTC"