Re: Adding a nounce before hashing as covert channel

Andrew Gallagher via Gnupg-devel <[email protected]> Tue, 17 Dec 2024 10:34:32 +0000

Newsgroups	gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.devel
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

On 17 Dec 2024, at 08:02, Werner Koch <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 16 Dec 2024 15:22, Andrew Gallagher said:
> 
>> Werner, *you* proposed a solution for this in the LibrePGP draft:
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-koch-librepgp#section-5.2.3.33
> 
> This is a proposal to add this to v4 sinature in a backward compatible
> way.  We had a direct hashing in the rfc4880bis which was then removed
> from the draft for no good reason.  Adding a hack later is not what
> counts as a solid successor of rfc4880.

Putting extra metadata in a subpacket (alongside all the existing metadata) is hardly a “hack”. Some solutions will of course be aesthetically “better” than others by subjective metrics. If you don’t want to implement any of them, that’s your choice. But none of them are “impossible”.

A

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-devel

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 833 B)