-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Oskar L. wrote:
> That's good news. Can it also create them? But there are probably
> still many using older versions. I know some who refuse to update
> from 6.5.8.
Yes.
And yes, there are still people using the very old 6.5.8 codebase.
These peop
Thanks again for all your answers, I'm really interested in this kind of
stuff.
Robert J. Hansen wrote (regarding "DSA2" keys):
> The latest versions of PGP support them.
That's good news. Can it also create them? But there are probably still
many using older versions. I know some who refuse to
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:36:36PM +0300, Oskar L. wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > 2. Why do you need an RSA keypair? The overwhelming majority of users
> >are best served by sticking with the defaults--which, in this case,
> >means a DSA/Elgamal keypair.
>
> I prefer RSA keys becaus
Oskar L. wrote:
> - They don't have a 1024 bit limit, like DSA has. I know "DSA2" can
> have larger keys, but last I heard PGP can't use them.
The latest versions of PGP support them.
> - RSA is faster.
If you are repeatedly encrypting and/or decrypting enormous files, then
yes, this is potentia
Srihari Vijayaraghavan wrote:
> I now have an 'authentication' subkey created. I've even extracted the SSH
> compatible public key from the subkey using gpgkey2ssh (which I can propagate
> to .ssh/authorized_keys of the remote machines).
>
> I'm stuck on unable to understand how to integrate the s
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 03:34:50PM -0500, John Clizbe wrote:
> > Alex wrote:
> >> Yes, common sense. if you submit your key to a keyserver, there
> >> should be some way to distinguish your key from hundreds of
> >> other having the same short name, when searching for a key.
> >
> > Sorry, I for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
John Clizbe wrote:
> There's no guarantee that your key won't end up on a keyserver nor is there
> one
> that your "private" email address won't leak into the public,
All it takes is 1 inadvertent click of 'Refresh All Keys' or a "well
intentioned
Oskar L. wrote:
>
> I can't understand why RSA isn't the default. The only argument defending
> DSA I've heard is that DSA creates smaller signatures. Is this really so
> important to people that they are willing to give up all the benefits of
> RSA for it?
"Business reasons" ever come up as a ra
On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 13:06:18 +0300 (EEST)
"Oskar L." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Name must be at least 5 characters long"
> Why? There are probably many people who like to go only by their first
> name, and have a 3 or 4 character name.
Use
gpg --gen-key --allow-freeform-uid
(from 'man gpg')
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> 2. Why do you need an RSA keypair? The overwhelming majority of users
>are best served by sticking with the defaults--which, in this case,
>means a DSA/Elgamal keypair.
I prefer RSA keys because
- DSA does not have a hash firewall.
- They don't have a 1024 bit
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:40:25AM -0400, Kevin Coates wrote:
>
> Occasionally the console session will display "subpacket of type 20 has
> critical bit set" when verifying certain signatures. What exactly is
> this message telling me and is it of any concern to me or the key owner?
It means that
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:06:18PM +0300, Oskar L. wrote:
> I'm about to generate a new keypair, and got a few questions.
>
> I have many e-mail addresses and change them frequently, and therefore I
> don't want to have one in my public key. (Also because I'm afraid of
> getting spam.) I think thi
Occasionally the console session will display "subpacket of type 20 has
critical bit set" when verifying certain signatures. What exactly is
this message telling me and is it of any concern to me or the key owner?
Thanks in advance.
Timestamp: Wed 22 August 2007, 08:34 AM --400 (Eastern Dayligh
Oskar L. wrote:
> "Name must be at least 5 characters long"
> Why? There are probably many people who like to go only by their
> first name, and have a 3 or 4 character name.
It's generally considered useful to follow the typical format for a
user id (FirstName LastName <[EMAIL PROTECTED]). You a
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 01:06:18PM +0300, Oskar L. wrote:
> I'm about to generate a new keypair, and got a few questions.
>
> I have many e-mail addresses and change them frequently, and therefore I
> don't want to have one in my public key. (Also because I'm afraid of
> getting spam.) I think thi
--- Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
> > 1. Is it possible to have only one key pair (public & secret pref. DSA)
> that
> > can be used for both GPG & OpenSSH? (as a sys admin of some interest in
> > cryptography, this is an important qu
Oskar L. wrote:
> Are there any any drawbacks in not having an e-mail address in the
> public key?
Not especially.
> Are there any widely used applications that will expect one, and not
> work if none is found?
Not to my knowledge.
> Why is there no way to generate a RSA keypair in one step,
Oskar L. wrote:
> I have many e-mail addresses and change them frequently, and therefore I
> don't want to have one in my public key. (Also because I'm afraid of
> getting spam.) I think this would be easier than having to update a lot of
> user IDs. Are there any any drawbacks in not having an e-
I'm about to generate a new keypair, and got a few questions.
I have many e-mail addresses and change them frequently, and therefore I
don't want to have one in my public key. (Also because I'm afraid of
getting spam.) I think this would be easier than having to update a lot of
user IDs. Are there
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Are you saying that I should be able to compile
> gpg now? Where do I get the estream library?
It is part of gnupg 2.0.6 and used on any platform.
(common/estream*.[ch])
I don't know whether it will build.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
-
20 matches
Mail list logo
