Eric wrote:
>Deleting a uid just means,
>more or less, chopping a block of bytes out of secring.gpg.
Are uid's also stored in the secret key? I thought they only existed
in the public key, since that's the only place where they are needed.
Storing in the secring is double: one can assume that if
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>someone's public key, leave an outdated one,
>and either publicly post the key , or upload that key to a new
>keyserver that did not have it before,
That's one of the reasons why most keyservers synchronise.
>wouldn't it be better where the deluid could be 'local only/
John W. Moore III schrieb:
> While polishing my settings on this new PC, I realize I've forgotten how
> to set RIPEMD160 as the Hash Algo to use. Running M$ XP with
> 1.4.2/Enigmail & GPGshell 3.45. Help Appreciated!
digest-algo RIPEMD160
cert-digest-algo RIPEMD160
Thomas
___
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While polishing my settings on this new PC, I realize I've forgotten how
to set RIPEMD160 as the Hash Algo to use. Running M$ XP with
1.4.2/Enigmail & GPGshell 3.45. Help Appreciated!
JOHN :)
Timestamp: Wed 10 August 2005, 06:58 PM --400 (Eastern D
OK, I'm getting frustrated with the interaction with the smart card.
I have generated a new ElGamal encryption key, 0x16AF3873.
$ gpg --edit-key 51192ff2
gpg: NOTE: THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT VERSION!
gpg: It is only intended for test purposes and should NOT be
gpg: used in a production environment or
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 14:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
> passphrase,
>
> why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
>
> (granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
> worry ;-)
>
> but, in p
R. Jensen wrote:
>
> Where can I get the 0.99.4 version? I downloaded from
> http://www.g10code.de/p-outlgpg.html last week and that is
> the 0.99.2 version I'm having problems with. The link on that
> page still seems to be for 0.99.2.
>
Patrick Dickey helped me with this a bit.
I downloaded:
f
after looking at the deluid some more,
found that any user's uid can be deleted from the public key,
and that this appears to be open-pgp behavior
this can be useful when someone has many outdated uid's,
and the user wants only the one with the current 'real' e-mail
address,
and wants to delete
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message sent 2005-08-10 17:18:
> when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a passphrase,
>
> why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
You're not issuing a signature when deleting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
(granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
worry ;-)
but, in principle,
shouldn't all key editing functions requ
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
(granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
worry ;-)
but, in principle,
shouldn't all key editing functions require a passphrase ?
tia,
ve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> Do you use the version 0.99.4? It is known that earlier version of
> the plugin can crash O2003/SP1.
>
Where can I get the 0.99.4 version? I downloaded from
http://www.g10code.de/p-outlgpg.html last week and that is
the 0.99.2 version I'm having p
Richard Sperry wrote:
> The issue you have is caused from the newer version of
> GnuPG. Timo is doing a great job of writing a newer
> version, but with all new releases it takes time to
> find the bugs.
>
> for a working beta of my Ol03 installer goto
> http://www.sperryservices.com/gnutools.ht
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Schulz wrote:
> I see you still use GPG 1.2.x. The plugin requires 1.4 and we will
> provide an more informative error message with the next version of
> the plugin.
>
>
> BTW, the newest WinPT version also requires GPG 1.4.x.
The 1.2.6 is on
On Wed Aug 10 2005; 10:50, R. Jensen wrote:
> to verify it, I get an error dialog:
>
>GPG Verify
> Invalid crypto engine
>
> My WinPT installation verifies the signature without a problem
I see you still use GPG 1.2.x. The plugin requires 1.4 and we will
provide an more informative
On Wed Aug 10 2005; 09:58, R. Jensen wrote:
> Outlook's Add-in Manager doesn't seem to know how to UNINSTALL an
> add-in. You can disable it, but that doesn't get rid of the entry. :-(
In the case of the GPG Outlook plugin, it's no problem. Just register
the new version of gpgexch.dll and the pr
On 8/10/05, Alphax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How long will 8 characters (standard unix password length) take to break
> at present?
Using the supplied figure of 200 keys per second, and using only the
95 "printable" ASCII characters:
(95^8)/200 seconds. Or about 1.1 million years!
Obviously, i
Hi.
i verify a PGP 8.1 signed message using gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.0.
It says that the message has a bad signature!
PGP Desktop 9 says that it is valid signed!
See attachment.
Regards,
Sascha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
**
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 15:10 +, cdr wrote:
> Werner Koch wrote:
>
> > Please write in English here...
>
> It is unnecessarily rude to demand that a particular language is
> used on any 'net list. One writing in a language not understood
> by the majority of those present will simply get fewer
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some more information. If I send a signed message to outlook and try
to verify it, I get an error dialog:
GPG Verify
Invalid crypto engine
My WinPT installation verifies the signature without a problem
(from the clipboard).
Richard.
-
Not when there are specific mailing lists to answer
questions asked in these:
http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/mailing-lists.html
I really woudn't want a lof of Portuguese, Spanish,
Russian or German worded questions to be asked in this
mailing list.
--- cdr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to Chris De Young's message sent 2005-08-09 17:24:
>> I primarily use inlined PGP because I'm tired of having my S/MIME
>> signed mail bounced back to me as undeliverable because "pkcs7
>> signature is listed as a dangerous attachment on
Werner Koch wrote:
Please write in English here...
It is unnecessarily rude to demand that a particular language is
used on any 'net list. One writing in a language not understood
by the majority of those present will simply get fewer useful
responses: a perfectly adequate self-regulating mech
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Before I installed the June 16th version
I was running an older version of the GPGExch.dll (Oct. 19, 2004)
(labeled as 1.1.0.0) that had a GDGPG.dll (1.3.0.0) file as well.
Outlook's Add-in Manager doesn't seem to know how to UNINSTALL an
add-in. You
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folkert van Heusden wrote:
>>>IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
>>>I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
>>>should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
>>>a proof of concept I can't get myself
> > IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
> > I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
> > should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
> > a proof of concept I can't get myself motivated to improve it.
> The password hashing is supposed to make it *di
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folkert van Heusden wrote:
> IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
> I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
> should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
> a proof of concept I can't get myself mot
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris De Young wrote:
> Maybe there are a few who wonder enough what it is you're sending them
> to go figure it out; if so, that's a win, but I doubt it happens very
> often. :)
>
Don't underestimate it. I saw "Using Enigmail with Thunderbird"
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michael Daigle wrote:
> It's unfortunate, but it's prevalent - and that's why inlined PGP is a
> good thing. We can still retain message authentication despite the
> goof-ball between us and the recipient.
Quite often, the goof-ball *is* the rec
IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
a proof of concept I can't get myself motivated to improve it.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:57:50AM +0930, Roscoe wrote:
> Curiou
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 9:45:07 AM, Johan wrote:
>>Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
>
> Technically, yes. But no implementation I know of allows this
Originally, this thread was about signature revocations (not key
revocations) and they definitely can be removed with gpg (
Raymond wrote:
>Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
Technically, yes. But no implementation I know of allows this because
it would make someone vulnerable for attack is someone gained access
to your machine. However, when a legitimate reason exists (accidentally
revoked a key, revo
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:46:29 +0200, Holger Schüttel said:
> hallo bin auf diesem sektor noch absolut blank aber irgendwie funzt
> das eingeben der befehle nicht habe gnu1.4.2 und ich muß doch eingeben
Bitte hier englisch schreiben oder aber die Liste [EMAIL PROTECTED]
benutzen.
Please write in E
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +1000, Raymond said:
> Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
No. Once issued they should not be removed.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg
34 matches
Mail list logo
