Re: Release Signing Keys are Susceptible to Attack

Richard Biener <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.gdb.devel,gmane.comp.gnu.binutils,gmane.comp.gcc.devel
Message-ID <CAFiYyc1v=E+0FHp9yF6oM-j8HMNDgrQ9Q3yNAa0vQ52ejYfT6A@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 4:23 AM, R0b0t1 <[email protected]> wrote:
> After downloading and verifying the releases on
> ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/, I found that the maintainers used 1024 bit DSA
> keys with SHA1 content digests. 1024 bit keys are considered to be
> susceptible to realistic attacks, and SHA1 has been considered broken
> for some time.
>
> http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.800-131Ar1.pdf, p17
> https://shattered.io/
>
> SHA1 is weak enough that a team of researchers was able to mount a
> realistic attack at no great cost.

It looks like gpg2 uses SHA1 as digest algorithm by default.  I use
a 2048bit RSA for signing, that should be ok, no?

I suggest to report the issue to gnupg upstream (I'm using 2.0.24
with libgcrypt version 1.6.1).  It looks like the OpenPGP standard
mandates SHA1 here and using --digest-algo is stronly advised
against for interoperability reasons.

Richard.

> As compilers and their utilities are a high value target I would
> appreciate it if the maintainers move to more secure verification
> schemes.
>
> Respectfully,
>      R0b0t1.
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.