Live data from Hacker News

Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

news.ycombinator.com

121–130 of 144 posts

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AES is really great compared to RSA, so I put my AES key on my website instead of my RSA public key. It's made it very easy for people to contact me securely.

Is it really secure if everyone has the key?

No, it isn't. He/She is trying to be funny.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#122

It's curious that he didn't sign his new key with his old key. Does anyone have a good explanation for why he wouldn't want to do that?

If someone can crack his key old as of 2020, then they can start distributing a fake Bruce Scheneier 4096 bit key at that time. He might think it's better for him as something of a security celebrity to just publish a new key.

If the old key is revoked, and is the only trust path to the new one, it's a worthless key.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you securely share the AES key?

AES is really great compared to RSA, so I put my AES key on my website instead of my RSA public key. It's made it very easy for people to contact me securely.

the trick with humor outside your main field is detecting it. I was like: "isn't AES a symmetric stuff ?" for a few second.

the other trick is naming thing: why would such a vague name like "Advanced Encryption Standard" designate specifically symmetric cipher?

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#124
post #95

So I have a GPG key. I used it a couple of times. Currently, it's most useful to me to sign my own Debian package repository. However, I can't seem to figure out how to get into the whole Web of Trust thing. Nobody I know has their own GPG/PGP key that they use and have signed by others and tools like BigLumber and other places where I looked for key signing parties have not turned up any results. I not spending all…

Not to be snarky, but have you tried using google? http://www.biglumber.com/ I get a couple requests a year when someone comes through town. It could do with more participation, though. :-)

Not to be snarky but in my original comment I said that I did use BigLumber without much success.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#125

So I have a GPG key. I used it a couple of times. Currently, it's most useful to me to sign my own Debian package repository. However, I can't seem to figure out how to get into the whole Web of Trust thing. Nobody I know has their own GPG/PGP key that they use and have signed by others and tools like BigLumber and other places where I looked for key signing parties have not turned up any results. I not spending all…

Local Linux User Groups often have people willing to sign the keys of other members in exchange for a signature on their key.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#126
post #69

So I have a GPG key. I used it a couple of times. Currently, it's most useful to me to sign my own Debian package repository. However, I can't seem to figure out how to get into the whole Web of Trust thing. Nobody I know has their own GPG/PGP key that they use and have signed by others and tools like BigLumber and other places where I looked for key signing parties have not turned up any results. I not spending all…

Webmail services could have jump-started WoT a decade ago, much like Hotmail jumpstarted popular email usage. [1] Had they "turned on" PGP for all their users, and then made it easy to tell when messages were being sent securely and when they weren't, it would have completely (and for the better) changed how we interact online (e.g., no need to "sign up" for web services, or "sign in" to every single site we visit; a…

Webmail + PGP really is insecure. The only way to do it properly would be with some OSS plugin + completely separate process for actually reading/writing emails.

However, I think we could use a better way to associate emails with PGP keys. For example, my email uses a domain I own. I have HTTPS on my domain, so I can deliver my public key to you securely over the Web. Alternatively, Google could have a service where you securely ask it "what is the key for example@gmail.com" and it responds with the key. Bootstrapping a full WoT is hard, but often times the requirements are much less strict. Most times I just want to know that if I email you that you are the only one that can read the email. I might not even care if you are truly the person you claim to be, as I know you by your email handle more than by your real name (as in emailing Satoshi Nakamoto). Of course having a webmail provider tell others what your public key is means you have to trust your webmail provider not to lie. You also have to trust their delivery mechanism (HTTPS) and the people that issue them their SSL certificates (as we know this can be circumvented by motivated governments).

I understand why GMail wouldn't want to support PGP. They read your emails to target ads at you. Without that there would be no GMail. If you encrypt everything you send/receive and GMail cannot read it, then they have no way to monetize it.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#129
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't use PGP on a regular basis. I'm use PGP a lot, more than I think most HN readers, but most of the people I talk to (even in my own field, which is full of secrets and adversaries) don't have PGP keys.

Oh, look. It's the government contractor sowing FUD.

Huh? I think you responded to the wrong comment.

Re: Bruce Schneier has changed his PGP key to 4096 bits

#130

Yet he prefers aes-256 over twofish-256 or camellia-256.

Source? And even if he does, how is that a problem? AES-256 has been independently tested and reviewed. Whether or not the NSA forced the NIST [1] to adopt it as a symmetric encryption standard is irrelevant.

[1]: http://blog.cryptographyengineering.com/2013/09/on-nsa.html

Post reply on HN