batch program to find my password - help please!!!
Unfortunately I forgot my passphrase but can remember some characters and the position of them in the phrase. I wrote a bash-script to check a list of passwords which are all candidates. I also created a test-gpg-account to test the script before I run it with the quite longer list. Now the output of the test-script shows me that it works at a speed of about three tests per second and it finds the correct phrase. But if I run the same script in my actual environment, in the .gnupg directory I see the passwords running at a much higher speed. The output per check is the same. But this script doesn't find the passphrase. The script reads: #!/bin/bash echo $1 while read -r line do echo $line gpg --batch --yes --homedir /home/user/.gnupg -o zahl.txt --passphrase $line --decrypt zahl.gpg success=$? if [ $success -eq 0 ]; then echo "success: $line"; exit 0; fi done < $1 echo "No success" --- Does anybody have any idea? Best Josef ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
David Smith (06.08.2010 19:51): > Note that there are no solutions that will prevent a user keeping a > decrypted copy of a previously-downloaded document, unless you use your > own custom-written browser and document viewer. How's that? A DRM? Don't forget a custom OS and a custom monitor to prevent a user making photo shots. -- Vlad "SATtva" Miller 3d viz | security & privacy consulting www.vladmiller.info | www.pgpru.com ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 03:51, Snaky Love wrote: > Hi, > I would like to better understand: is gnupg good for big groups? > > I would like to encrypt communication in groups - not instant communication > like e.g. messengers like pidgin, but like on a forum or web-group - the > data persists in an archive, where the communication can be read. Members > are coming and leaving a group constantly - that means if somebody leaves > the group, she should not be able to read the content decrypted anymore, and > if anybody attaches the group all the old content optionally must be > encrypted with her key so she can read all data belonging to this group. > well, maybe you get the idea. It´s basically like a forum or mailing list > with an archive. > With my understanding of gnupg I see no other way than to store the data NOT > encrypted - in a database or wherever, perhaps on an encrypted disc to > compensate for the data not being encrypted - and then to encrypt the data > on the fly with the pubkey of the user after the user logged into the > website and is checked to belong to the right group. > But doing this would be stupid, as it would basically use gnupg only for > transport - but there is already SSL and TLS existing for this purpose. > So is there any trick to encrypt data at creation time for unknown future > users? > And how can I remove users from the group of allowed users without > re-encrypting the content? Is this possible to realize at all without having > to keep the original unencrypted content? > Is this scenario - group communication - not a use-case for gnupg at all? > Thank you very much for your attention! > Have a nice day, > Snaky > Sounds to me like you just need a password-protected online forum such as PHPbb or such. -- Dotan Cohen http://gibberish.co.il http://what-is-what.com ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Keypair is expiring.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El 06-08-2010 10:07, Klaus Vink Slott escribió: ... > offered to extend the life of the primary key. This let me to the conclusion > that is was not possible to extend the validity on a subkey. My fault and now > every thing is great for the next 5 years ;-) Yes, it will be good until 05-08-2015 Best Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMXYX4AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAWv0IAKpATPaBuW0yagSdTBY7iu7q f/ZWmpjreyHRy9o8tnseeQd9lF7miYLLQB4p5Qecw/JV+3qApN0mYvp87qqJaSKK vpe1q8Rc1F9K3/5+LxQvHcmNqvcaeGEQC25bbqOYlwGzn9rkXdrlPX1UnR43WZzs ZoAiYe8fUAoCwowZUEmdyRw2unQDVAkm2mJDvRWxPxfp9N2WKVmS0m+chPrby3mo o8M8tfuJOlAGnGg4rGAeJanzx/DACB2BDlBPNZoxVcOI5FKEw4ZRIxjq8DViaetG zTjaqayUhysExu6rZ5CA9YYgG1r7/ItsnpbsfqW6LBkAy1smHx6Ui0naCSBTN/A= =kkc6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Thursday 5 August 2010 at 11:32:37 PM, in , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > So the question isn't whether key management is the > major reason why people sign up and don't hang around > -- the question is more whether key management is a > major expense which adversely affects the cost-benefit > ratio. Fair enough. > As an example, if I were to start posting tomorrow's > winning lottery numbers to PGPNET, If you have them, could you PM them to me, please? (-; > Some years ago I offered to write a tool for the group > which would help manage the key problem. (Kind of.) > The idea was to write a small Windows app that would > automatically download the membership list once a day > and update Enigmail's pgprules.xml file. This meant > Enigmail users would no longer be maintaining > per-recipient rule lists by hand (which is tedious, > error-prone, and frustrating for newbies). The process > would be entirely automated. > Ultimately, the group decided not to take me up on the > offer -- the overwhelming opinion was that they'd > rather get experience editing pgprules.xml by hand. > C'est la vie. :) Whether fully automated or ran on demand, I'm quite surprised *nobody* was interested. I don't use Thunderbird/Enigmail, so it wouldn't help me; I make use of jasontik's group line generator to update the group line in my gpg.conf after roll-calls or after a period of absence from the group - other than that I just edit that line manually to add or delete the odd key ID. > It sounds like a great idea, up until you consider that > even if the spam overhead problem is reduced by a > factor of 10, that gain gets obliterated once a few > more people join the network. The spam overhead > follows an exponential growth. When dealing with > exponential curves, linear reductions -- even large > linear reductions -- are pretty much meaningless. I take it the "spam overhead problem" you refer to is things like "not encrypted to my key" messages? - -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@ymail.com A closed mouth gathers no foot -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTF2eu6ipC46tDG5pAQqU2gP/d/x/NR6CpcNe/b/HLHhy6T0EQNGUuuPr 6qqyoZXxeTDHtSq834p529CY3RRAJxded7IDkEkkcaXPajhQ4V28CU9ZGplMm6Nb HlHW5cj09XOeDY+VLEQt9b7iw0uGbWWBXv96LHMtQH4hYQsGf+6O6lNyiihcMCFs wrCwjaAzfaY= =XMAh -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Keypair is expiring.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Friday 6 August 2010 at 3:07:31 PM, in , Klaus Vink Slott wrote: > I > find it quite confusing that if you start the program > with --edit-key [subkey-id] and issue a expire command > - then I am offered to extend the life of the primary > key. This let me to the conclusion that is was not > possible to extend the validity on a subkey. Yes, this is one of the situations in which the subkey ID stands as an alias for the primary key ID. FWIW, I tried prepending an exclamation mark to the subkey ID but it didn't help. - -- Best regards MFPAmailto:expires2...@ymail.com I hit the CTRL key but I'm still not in control! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iQCVAwUBTF2h16ipC46tDG5pAQr5EgQAhWFo1akt8ZkMJUFTfRNLajygLvqgzJkT FRZtb8qTxCQyLWEOPXFy+j+Rl23z7rcLLyxaEI0af3y6l8005zDo3y9gYJ20ZwBd Qgu4a1EA1mFaCXBB82kXRNSP9oIjt/hp+wTWHOT0SqUHVSMFkfPMDTImSxA6VjvC EK0WOUInIvQ= =UUJU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
On 8/7/2010 1:58 PM, MFPA wrote: > Whether fully automated or ran on demand, I'm quite surprised *nobody* > was interested. One person said they would use it. The overall reaction was negative. These things happen. Sometimes, the tool you think people need isn't the tool they want. :) > I take it the "spam overhead problem" you refer to is things like "not > encrypted to my key" messages? Yep. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:57:57 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > It is also worth noting that PGPNET has some very big problems with key > management. PGPNET users are apparently comfortable wrestling with > these problems (more power to them for that), but we shouldn't pretend > the problems don't exist. > > In a completely connected graph of N nodes there are (N^2 - N)/2 > different edges. Or, in English, 40 members equals 780 separate > communications links, each one of which can fail and produce problems > for other people. The network begins to get spammed with "that last > message wasn't encrypted to my new key, please re-send." The network > slowly begins to drown with communications overhead: key > synchronization, resend requests, failure notifications, etc. PGPNET is > probably operating pretty close to the limits of OpenPGP. At some point > the math bites you hard and doesn't let go. Well, I have some numbers to show the frequency of NETMK (Not Encrypted To My Key) messages. I was on the PGPNET mailing list for just over three months, and these are my findings (note that all of these numbers are from the day that I joined to the day that roll call ended and my key was removed). 681 Messages sent by members of the list 628 Encrypted messages 36 NETMK messages 37-41 Keys 37-40 Members 32 Members sent encrypted messages 13 Members were responsible for not encrypting to someone's key 12 Members sent NETMK messages And for what it's worth: 22 Messages weren't encrypted to my key So for me that makes approximately 1 in 29 encrypted messages was not encrypted to my key, 1 in 19 of all messages was a NETMK message, and 1 in 12 of all messages was either not encrypted to my key or a NETMK complaint. Hope this is enlightening. :-) -Paul ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Gnupg good for big groups?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 El 07-08-2010 15:59, Paul Richard Ramer escribió: ... > So for me that makes approximately 1 in 29 encrypted messages was not > encrypted to my key, 1 in 19 of all messages was a NETMK message, and 1 > in 12 of all messages was either not encrypted to my key or a NETMK > complaint. > > Hope this is enlightening. :-) The interesting thing, is a lot of times the NETMK messages are caused by less active members who (somehow) broken their configurations. Best Regards -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMXfqdAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAcOMH/24oZnWBGWeipdn09Sbt3Kg2 nhaKFaoebB91EUHVUioEEnuUtuVDsa5M8MXV101wSTjOAk/otIoL4nvJ/I55aXJZ gcsCo7HYF0lvFBhDdAGhJTwdyZ2Xo24yIW3A+V7JEYIjMz+0N1/1dHtDv8GDTK+F RPmX3WMbMiAYEpOuoA4LdBHuKvR2KCG7nyqRFjf7UB7SB2y3k3a1+fmdGBOAvPAU YYZKjneeinCdxeq7uQ/L/xmjXuzXNs2iQKZD6XI0tt22485TZghS2GD0wzXlCGVY 1vtSpy0Zig+2wcakwprAVjXotUN+7xSQX7WO1AlhiV1KzUKK5v2O6yzGxU2g3Ng= =iVBn -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
