Are DSA2 signing keys backwards compatible?
David Shaw
dshaw at jabberwocky.com
Mon Feb 11 14:23:10 CET 2008
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 10:53:23PM -0600, Kevin Hilton wrote:
> >You could use SHA-512 with
> >it if you liked, but the hash would be truncated to 256 bits.
>
> Interesting. Are the higher or lower bits truncated?
RFC-4880:
DSA signatures MUST use hashes that are equal in size to the number
of bits of q, the group generated by the DSA key's generator value.
If the output size of the chosen hash is larger than the number of
bits of q, the hash result is truncated to fit by taking the number
of leftmost bits equal to the number of bits of q. This (possibly
truncated) hash function result is treated as a number and used
directly in the DSA signature algorithm.
> >We follow the advice in FIPS 180-3:
> >
> > L = 1024, N = 160
> > L = 2048, N = 224
> > L = 3072, N = 256
>
> Ok. So back to the ever asking defaults question, so why when I
> produce a 3072 bit DSA signing key, why isnt my first digest hash
> preference or choice SHA-256? Here is what I am getting:
>
> pub 3072D/0053175A created: 2007-11-14 expires: never usage: SC
> trust: unknown validity: unknown
> sub 4096g/51BFA0E0 created: 2007-11-14 expires: never usage: E
> [ unknown] (1). -----------------------------------------------------
>
> Command> showpref
> [ unknown] (1). -----------------------------------------------------
> Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES
> Digest: SHA1, SHA256, RIPEMD160
> Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed
> Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify
>
> It would seem in fact that my digest preferences should only be SHA256
> or SHA512 based on the information provided! SHA1 or RIPEMD160
> shouldn't even be listed here, correct?
No. Preferences, including the digest preferences, are not relevant
here at all. This is a signature *you* are making. The digest
preferences are consulted when someone *else* is making a signature,
and wants to know if you can handle it. It has nothing to do with
what your key needs because your key is not involved.
David
More information about the Gnupg-users
mailing list