On 2/19/07, Joseph Oreste Bruni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's funny you mention this: I got into an argument with a
> "consultant" about how X.509 certificates are a privacy violation
> because your identity is encoded into the "subject" field. I kept
> asking him, "How would you know whose ce
Adam Funk wrote:
> On 2007-02-19, John Clizbe wrote:
>
>> The passphrase is only one protection on your keypair and it's
>> pretty much the protection of last resort - given an easily
>> guessable/brute-forced passphrase, it's "Game-Over." if an attacker
>> gets access to the keyring files. Anothe
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:54 AM, NikNot wrote:
On 2/19/07, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there any reason to physically secure your *public* keyring in
... (Well, I suppose you might want to hide your secret identity!)
Unfortunately, the whole GPG, with WebOfTrust construct, makes
On 2/19/07, Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there any reason to physically secure your *public* keyring in
> ... (Well, I suppose you might want to hide your secret identity!)
Unfortunately, the whole GPG, with WebOfTrust construct, makes the
assumption that there is no need whatsoever
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 11:51:02AM -0500, Jason Harris wrote:
> > There is not an easy answer to that question. subkeys.pgp.net is not
> > actually a keyserver, but rather a collection of (at the moment) 5
> > different keyservers. When you use it, you get one server from the
> > pool in a round
Hi,
this is just a reminder that there's a key signing party at FOSDEM
this year again. I am a bit late to post this note (due to carneval
season), submissions are already closed by now, but it's possible to
exchange key fingerprints according to the usual scheme (with me ;-)
FOSDEM takes place i
On 2007-02-19, John Clizbe wrote:
> The passphrase is only one protection on your keypair and it's
> pretty much the protection of last resort - given an easily
> guessable/brute-forced passphrase, it's "Game-Over." if an attacker
> gets access to the keyring files. Another protection is to
> phys
On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 11:31:55PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 18, 2007 at 11:11:37PM +0100, Bruno Costacurta wrote:
> > I updated the expiration (via gpg --edit-key using expire option) of my key
> > and (re)sended it to a keyserver (via gpg --send-keys [my key id]) to
> > keyserver
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 09:21:56AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have been using gpg to encrypt/decrypt files on my computer "for my
> eyes only". I have been using my public/private keypair on my keyring
> to do so. I just discovered that I can use encrypt/decrypt local
> files using a sy
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Maybe you should think things through, or God forbid even run a
> > few tests or something before puffing your chest there Robert.
> > Especially when you're in the unenviable position of potentialy
> > being your own proof of concept.
>
> I don't know why you have suc
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have been using gpg to encrypt/decrypt files on my computer "for my
> eyes only". I have been using my public/private keypair on my keyring
> to do so. I just discovered that I can use encrypt/decrypt local
> files using a symmetric cipher--i.e., you enter one secret
I have been using gpg to encrypt/decrypt files on my computer "for my
eyes only". I have been using my public/private keypair on my keyring
to do so. I just discovered that I can use encrypt/decrypt local
files using a symmetric cipher--i.e., you enter one secret passphrase
to encrypt and then e
12 matches
Mail list logo
