<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 2:32 AM, Laurens Van Houtven <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:_@lvh.cc" target="_blank">_@lvh.cc</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">DSA, by default, used SHA-1; recent revisions support SHA-2. A few years ago, GnuPG and several big users including Debian and Apache started suggesting the move to RSA instead of DSA keys. The algorithms vary a bit in speed and signature size, but the main reason was to allow newer hash functions.<br>
<div>
<br>That said, I'm pretty sure GPG uses a newer revision of DSA: when I left the defaults untouched near the end of 2012, it still seemed to prefer DSA/ElGamal despite the news from a few years ago. IIRC, the first version of the algorithm only allowed 1024 bit keys, whereas my DSA key is 3072.<br>
</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>DSA keys larger than 1024 bit(?) are "non-standard", but I think the bigger issue is that DSA only supports 160-bit hashes; larger hashes will be truncated, which means you don't gain much by using SHA-256/SHA-512/etc. instead of SHA-1. DSA2 can handle larger hashes, but there's no real reason to use DSA2 when RSA is so widespread. I think this is the reason the defaults are changing (were changed?) in GnuPG.<br>
<br>I guess this is drifting off-topic though...<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">Here's how you check what you support and in which preference:<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Thanks, much more useful than my vague speculation about defaults ;)<br></div><div class="gmail_extra">-- <br>mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar
</div></div>