On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 14:20 +0930, Roscoe wrote:
> I don't see any worthwhile gain over setting a strong passphrase, and
> then secret sharing that passphrase with .
Fewer things can go wrong.
Secret shared passphrase + private key: what happens if the private key
is unavailable? E.g., I die
> Why not just pick a strong passphrase and mail a copy to all
> your email accounts? You would only need to worry about remembering
> the passphrase.
Doesn't help if I'm dead.
I have some encrypted traffic which my estate will need to read in the
event of my death. So I can give my key and pass
I don't see any worthwhile gain over setting a strong passphrase, and
then secret sharing that passphrase with .
In Roberts example if you were to use +paperkey you'd merely
export an encrypted secret key, and then print in the line above it an
share.
As far as I can see this would p
Why not just pick a strong passphrase and mail a copy to all
your email accounts? You would only need to worry about remembering
the passphrase. One solution is to pick a bunch of friends who
regularly use pgp (maybe even the active members from this list),
encrypt the text of you passphrase to th
On Thu, 2007-11-01 at 20:34 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> > product of g10 Code GmbH and the GnuPG community; PGP is a product of
> >
>
> FWIW: Although we do quite some work on GnuPG there are other authors
> and contributor
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 07:26:15PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Does anyone see a good use case (aside from the cool-trick
> > factor) to using secret sharing in paperkey?
>
> Yes. E.g., I may wish to give shares to my best friend and my cousin.
> This way, even if their homes and/or office
> Does anyone see a good use case (aside from the cool-trick
> factor) to using secret sharing in paperkey?
Yes. E.g., I may wish to give shares to my best friend and my cousin.
This way, even if their homes and/or offices are broken into, or one of
them misplaces/loses their share, I don't need
--- Atom Smasher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, YYZ wrote:
>
> > Going through the list archives, I came across a few of your
> postings
> > that seem to indicate that you have more insight into the way
> subkey
> > self-signatures are generated than what I can gather from t
On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, David Shaw wrote:
> Does anyone see a good use case (aside from the cool-trick factor) to
> using secret sharing in paperkey?
1) weak passphrase on the key
2) no passphrase on the key
#2 may be more useful than it seems, if a key is very rarely used and
the
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:59:29PM +0930, Roscoe wrote:
> Not answering your questions but two handy tools I like :)
>
>
> A while ago we had a big discussion regarding printing out keys for backup,
> which (I think) prompted David Shaw to write a following small program to
> assist those wanting
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 22:48, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> product of g10 Code GmbH and the GnuPG community; PGP is a product of
FWIW: Although we do quite some work on GnuPG there are other authors
and contributors as well. GnuPG is part of the GNU project and legally
"belongs"
jramro wrote:
> I was a bit confused because i heard that PGP can intercept a mail form
> through SMTP and encrypt it , but that GnuPG can not?
GnuPG and PGP both support the OpenPGP specification (RFC2440). They
also each have some additional functionality. PGP has a mail proxy as
part of its
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 04:04:58PM -0700, William Bradshaw wrote:
> When calling the GPG command from within a Vitria Businessware automator
> process, files larger than 20MB fail to encrypt. Files smaller than
> 20MB encrypt just fine. If I run the GPG command outside of the Vitria
> Businesswar
Hi!
jramro schrieb:
> I'm trying to send a php mail form and not able to get it to encrypt or do
> much of anything.
First of all, make sure that you have access to the gpg executable from
your php script and that safe mode and similar restrictions do not cause
problems.
Make also sure that the
Hi All
Thanks for your thoughts. I was also looking forward to your comments
on what NSA is saying. For one, they claim RSA is "old" even with
longer keys. Why are they making a case for ECC. Is it easier to
crack.
Another thing I could think of us that ECC key generation is like a
one-way hash.
Hi,
I'm experiencing problems decrypting an email I received, recently.
Decryption of other emails, even from the same sender works fine.
Although the other recipients of this particular email don't seem
to have a problem with the decryption of it.
GPG tells me (recipients have been anonymised by
16 matches
Mail list logo
