{"id":112077,"date":"2023-12-08T15:10:14","date_gmt":"2023-12-08T13:10:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/blog\/novosti-interneta\/avtor-gnupg-osnoval-librepgp-fork-standarta-openpgp"},"modified":"2023-12-08T15:10:14","modified_gmt":"2023-12-08T13:10:14","slug":"avtor-gnupg-osnoval-librepgp-fork-standarta-openpgp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/prohoster.info\/ro\/blog\/news\/avtor-gnupg-osnoval-librepgp-fork-standarta-openpgp","title":{"rendered":"Autorul GnuPG a fondat LibrePGP, un fork al standardului OpenPGP","gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"text"}]},"content":{"rendered":"
Werner Koch, principal developer and creator of the GnuPG (GNU Privacy Guard) project, founded the LibrePGP project, focused on developing an updated specification, an alternative to the OpenPGP standard. The fork was created in response to changes proposed by the IETF working group for the next update of the OpenPGP specification (RFC-4880), which Koch perceived as questionable regarding compatibility preservation and security assurance. Developers supporting the fork from GnuPG, RNP (the OpenPGP implementation from Thunderbird), and Gpg4win fear that the proposed changes could be detrimental to existing OpenPGP-based application implementations, whose users rely on the long-term stability of the specification and are not ready to accept changes that disrupt compatibility. <\/p>\n
LibrePGP includes useful improvements that have been developed in recent years for the future version of the OpenPGP specification, while excluding changes that negatively affect compatibility. For example, compared to the current standard RFC-4880, LibrePGP includes such features as: <\/p>\n
\n
Support for the Camellia encryption algorithm (RFC-5581),\n
ECC (Elliptic Curve Cryptography) extensions for OpenPGP (RFC-6637).\n
Mandatory support for SHA2-256 hashes (SHA-1 and MD5 are categorized as deprecated, and the ability to decrypt data without integrity verification is categorized as completely obsolete).\n
Increase of the fingerprint size to 256 bits.\n
Support for the EdDSA digital signature scheme and the elliptic curves BrainpoolP256r1, BrainpoolP384r1, BrainpoolP512r1, Ed25519, Curve25519, Ed488, and X448.\n
Support for the CRYSTALS-Kyber algorithm, resistant to attacks by quantum computers.\n
Support for authenticated encryption modes OCB (Offset Codebook Mode).\n
Implementation of the fifth version of the digital signatures format with metadata protection.\n
Support for extended subpackets with digital signatures. <\/ul>\n
Key elements of criticism of the new OpenPGP specification: <\/p>\n
\n
The IETF working group attempted to reinvent the standard instead of gradually incrementing the specification, making significant changes that disrupt compatibility.\n
Impunerea suportului pentru modul de criptare simetric GCM (Galois\/Counter Mode), care este dificil de implementat corect, ignor\u00e2nd \u00eens\u0103 modul OCB (Offset codebook mode), a c\u0103rui patenturi au expirat acum c\u00e2\u021biva ani.\n
Ad\u0103ugarea de pachete op\u021bionale cu umplutur\u0103 aleatorie ad\u0103ugat\u0103 pentru a proteja \u00eempotriva analizei de trafic. Potrivit creatorilor LibrePGP, astfel de pachete cu umplutur\u0103 aleatorie ini\u021bial\u0103 neconfirmat\u0103 creeaz\u0103 o amenin\u021bare de utilizare pentru crearea de canale ascunse de transmitere a datelor \u0219i ocolirea sistemelor de prevenire a scurgerilor de date. \u00cen trecut, ideea includerii umpluturii a fost respins\u0103, consider\u00e2ndu-se ca fiind un obiect la nivel de aplica\u021bie, nu de criptare.\n
Aplicarea unui format modificat al schemei de criptare ECDH (schimbarea formatului OID), \u00een locul utiliz\u0103rii versiunii deja descrise \u00een RFC-6637 \u0219i implementate \u00een PGP \u0219i GnuPG.\n
Eliminarea unor func\u021bionalit\u0103\u021bi utilizate \u00een practic\u0103, cum ar fi metoda clasic\u0103 de revocare a cheilor, flag-ul «m» pentru marcarea datelor MIME \u0219i flag-ul «t» pentru separarea datelor text de cele binare (\u00eenlocuit cu flag-ul «u» pentru text \u00een codificarea UTF-8).\n
Refuzul de a include \u00een noul format de semn\u0103turi protec\u021bia metadatelor fi\u0219ierului semnat (de exemplu, numele fi\u0219ierului poate fi modificat f\u0103r\u0103 a \u00eenc\u0103lca semn\u0103tura).\n
O posibilitate dubious\u0103 de a ad\u0103uga « sare » la semn\u0103turi (Salted signature) pentru a \u00eembun\u0103t\u0103\u021bi protec\u021bia \u00eempotriva atacurilor de coliziune cu un prefix dat. Valoarea cu sare poate fi utilizat\u0103 ca un canal ascuns nesuprapus pentru transmiterea a 32 de octe\u021bi de date \u00een semn\u0103tur\u0103.\n
Deplasarea standardului c\u0103tre utilizarea principal\u0103 pentru comunicarea online, ignor\u00e2nd nevoile pentru stocarea pe termen lung a datelor. <\/ul>\n
Sus\u021bin\u0103torii OpenPGP au publicat deja critici asupra criticilor. \u00cen consecin\u021b\u0103, dac\u0103 nu se va g\u0103si un compromis, divizarea poate duce la un num\u0103r tot mai mare de incompatibilit\u0103\u021bi \u00een implement\u0103rile OpenPGP\/LibrePGP. Par\u021bial pentru a rezolva aceast\u0103 problem\u0103, dezvoltatorii OpenPGP au fixat a cincea versiune a formatului de semn\u0103turi \u00eentr-un mod compatibil cu LibrePGP \u0219i au \u00eenceput lucr\u0103rile la a \u0219asea versiune. \n Sursa: opennet.ro<\/a> <\/p>","protected":false,"gt_translate_keys":[{"key":"rendered","format":"html"}]},"excerpt":{"rendered":"