alt Hacker News>The fact that it’s short enough that I even need to think about whether it’s a problem is, frankly, pathetic.
Please resist the temptation to personally attack others.
I think you mean that 64 bits of hash output could be trivially collided using, say, Pollard's rho method. But it turns out that simple collisions are not an issue for such hashes used as identities. The fact that PGP successfully used 32 bits (16 bits of effort for a collision) for so long is actually a great example of the principle.
>...encrypt-then-sign, encrypt-and-sign, sign-then-encrypt...
You mean encrypt-then-MAC here I think.
>...I should not even be able to do them separately even if I want to.
Alas that is not possible. The problem is intrinsic to end to end encrypted messaging. Protocols like PGP combine them into a single key fingerprint so that the user does not have to deal with them separately. You still have to verify the fingerprint for people you are sending to and the fingerprint for the people who send you messages.
Replies
> I think you mean that 64 bits of hash output could be trivially collided using, say, Pollard's rho method. But it turns out that simple collisions are not an issue for such hashes used as identities.
No. I mean that 64 bits can probably be inexpensively attacked to produce first or second preimages.
It would be nice if a decentralized crypto system had memorable key identifiers and remained secure, but I think that is likely to be a pipe dream. So a tool like gpg shouldn’t even try. Use at least 128 bits and give three choices: identify keys by an actual secure hash or identify them by a name the user assigns or pass them directly. Frankly I’m not sure why identifiers are even useful — see my original complaint about keyrings.
>> ...I should not even be able to do them separately even if I want to.
>Alas that is not possible. The problem is intrinsic to end to end encrypted messaging. Protocols like PGP combine them into a single key fingerprint so that the user does not have to deal with them separately.
Huh? It’s possible. It’s not even hard. It could work like this:
$ better_gpg decrypt_and_auth --sender_pubkey [KEY] --recipient_privkey [KEY]
Ciphertext input is supplied on stdin. Plaintext output appears on stdout but only if the message validates correctly.
They didn't personally attack you. They (correctly) attacked 64-bit identifiers.