Quote from: Guru on September 07, 2012, 06:11 pm To me, the big news in Lucky Green's announcement is not that he  believes that Bernstein's research is sufficiently worrisome as to  warrant revoking his 1024-bit keys; it's that, in 2002, he still has  1024-bit keys to revoke. This discussion highlights the huge inertia in key rollover. Many  people are still using short keys. Lucky Green's e-mail sheds a  light on this phenomenon. He wrote "In light of the above, I  reluctantly revoked all my personal 1024-bit PGP keys and the large  web-of-trust that these keys have acquired over time." The web of  trust attached to those keys was of great value, and reestablishing  it with a new set of keys will be difficult and time-consuming.  To Green, that pain was more important than having a "long enough"  key.Quote In light of the above, I reluctantly revoked all my personal 1024-bit PGP keys and the large web-of-trust that these keys have acquired over time. The keys should be considered compromised. The revoked keys and my new keys are attached below. --Lucky GreenThis interests me too, I can't believe I didn't think of this. Of course there would be a key rollover issue.Seems that is a big problem for the web of trust idea. This is a problem for projects to create Secure Forums,because if there is this web of trust rollover problem, then it will create a community wide lethargy in upgradingtheir encryption, ironically.