-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
From: S3
Subject: pinentry stdin problems
I recently upgraded from GPG v1.4 to GPG v2.
Previously, I was able to do this:
tar c | gpg -s > a.tar.gpg
However, with the new version that uses pinentry,
it does not allow me to insert my password
when
Nicholas Cole wrote:
Although, of course, if there really are patent issues, it can't
happen, but perhaps PGP Corp would/could be flexible on this point.
Not happening. GnuPG is already making inroads enough on the server
market. ADK is one of the few features which (a) PGP can claim over
G
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 5:49 PM, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even if the patent issue was resolved, it doesn't really solve much to
> have GPG follow the ADK. GPG is distributed as source - easy enough
> for someone to simply comment out the ADK code if they didn't want it
> to ta
I'm being sent a file that's encrypted using our PK by some version of
PGP using IDEA (or course). I'd like to decrypt it using gpg, in a CMD
shell, under Windows XP.
To get started, I downloaded and installed gpg, downloaded and copied
over idea.dll, copied over our PGP keyrings and renamed them
Hi all,
I'm new user of gpgme. I installed gpgme-1.1.4 and studied examples of it.
But when I try to run t-decrypt and t-encrypt binaries, they give this
error:
# ./t-encrypt
t-encrypt.c:60: GPGME: End of file
# ./t-decrypt
t-decrypt.c:64: GPGME: Decryption failed
I'm using Fedora Core 8 (2.6.2
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:14:55 -0500 "Robert J. Hansen"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Technical fixes to provide ADK-like functionality are well and
>good, but
>if you aren't looking at the patent and creating this new
>technology
>with an eye towards avoiding the patent, you're playing the legal
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
a simple corporate solution,
Again, check the patent and then check with a patent lawyer. The patent
language is suitably broad that this sort of thing might be construed by
a court to fall under the patent.
Technical fixes to provide ADK-like functionality are wel
>> We won't add ARR (aka ADK) to GnuPG. It would be more useful to
>add a
>> re-encode feature to add another public or symmetric key for
>decryption.
>
>The patent language on #6314190 is sufficiently broad that it
>would
>arguably cover this, too, depending on how it's implemented.
a simple
Werner Koch wrote:
> Frankly, I did not knew about this patent until now.
US Patent 6314190, for those who want to check it out.
> I consider the ADK the wrong solution to a problem which can't be solved
> by a tool.
Mostly agreed.
> We won't add ARR (aka ADK) to GnuPG. It would be more useful
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 02:54:07PM +, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM, David Picón Álvarez
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I know that ADK can be circumvented by a determined attacker, but it
> > > strikes me as a useful feature, and I have never quite understood the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
>From: Nicholas Cole
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:54 AM
>To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>Subject: Re: Corporate use of gnupg
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM, David Picón Álvarez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > I know that ADK can be circumvent
On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 14:25, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> PGP Corporation has a patent on ADKs. That's the number one reason
> why the other OpenPGP implementations do not support it.
Frankly, I did not knew about this patent until now.
I consider the ADK the wrong solution to a problem which can't
Am Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:00:51 +0100
schrieb Christoph Anton Mitterer
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 1) When using a basic test-keyscript like
>
> #!/bin/sh
> gpg --decrypt "$1"
>
> and I boot from the initramfs I'll get the following error:
> gpg:cannot open /dev/tty: No such device or address.
> and gpg
Hello all,
I can import IBMpgp generated pubkeys into GnuPG (on my windows machine),
but am unable to do so the other way around.
If I try to import the GnuPG created keys into IBMpgp, I get "Failed to
verify the signature"
Thoughts?
Cheers,
Shaz Zeb
__
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:35:33PM -0800, David Botham wrote:
> All,
>
> I am having problems setting the expiration date on my private subkey.
> I can set it, however, when I quit and then re-edit the key, the
> expiration date is set to 'never', instead of what I had set it to in
> the previous
John,
Thanks for you reply.
>
> Are You finishing with:
>
> quit
>
> or
>
> save
Yes, I used quit, however, I did Save on exit... See below... Notice
that for key 'A734F56B', the public subkey has an expiration of
2008-02-19, however, after exiting and re-editing, the secret subkey has
an ex
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 1:23 PM, David Picón Álvarez
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I know that ADK can be circumvented by a determined attacker, but it
> > strikes me as a useful feature, and I have never quite understood the
> > opposition to it. It would have made encryption more palatable in
Just to address the original point of the thread, though, could you
not use sub-keys to achieve the most of the effect you want?
Have everyone share an encryption/decryption subkey, but have their
own separate signing keys. The disadvantage would be that anyone in
the group (ie not just an admini
David Shaw schrieb:
>> Looks like this is ADK. Is there any way to do this on gpg?
>>
> Yes. Put "encrypt-to (the-adk-key)" in everyone's gpg.conf.
I thought that ADKs would work whenever encrypting to a key with that
feature enabled (i.e. also for incoming emails)? I.e. it is per-key and
no
Nicholas Cole wrote:
I know that ADK can be circumvented by a determined attacker, but it
strikes me as a useful feature, and I have never quite understood the
opposition to it.
PGP Corporation has a patent on ADKs. That's the number one reason why
the other OpenPGP implementations do not sup
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 07:00:12PM -0800, Texaskilt wrote:
>
> I guess what we are wanting is for every mail user to have their own
> public/private key. This way they can encrypt their own email on the
> corporate system.
>
> In addition, every email would also be encrypted using the "corporate
I know that ADK can be circumvented by a determined attacker, but it
strikes me as a useful feature, and I have never quite understood the
opposition to it. It would have made encryption more palatable in
corporate settings, which surely would have been a good thing!
IMO there are two possibili
Hi.
I'm writing a support script for using dm-crypt/luks for root-filesystem
encryption, that will be used from an initramfs.
The iniramfs-scripts parse /etc/cryptab which specifies the file that
contains the key. It also allows to specify a so called keyscript, that
is invoked with the keyfile as
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 3:00 AM, Texaskilt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Looks like this is ADK. Is there any way to do this on gpg?
GPG does not implement ADK. I think that, historically, it seemed too
much like the kind of key escrow systems that governments have from
time to time talked abo
I guess what we are wanting is for every mail user to have their own
public/private key. This way they can encrypt their own email on the
corporate system.
In addition, every email would also be encrypted using the "corporate key"
that would be in the hands of a select few (supposedly).
For exa
The OS of the virtual server is Windows Server 2003 SR2. I'm using
Windows XP systems to Remote Desktop into the virtual server.
Thanks,
Ken Kammer
.NET Developer
SIMS2 Team
937/485-8077
www.reyrey.com
This message is confidential and may contain confidential information it
is intended only for
Dnia 14-02-2008, Cz o godzinie 22:02 +0100, Anders Breindahl pisze:
> > Admittedly the protection will never be perfect but I would like it to
> > be as good as can be.
>
> Right. But to that purpose, hiding from non-rootkit (?) cracks still
> seem like a bad way of using your time. Leave the
>
I keep getting an error that says;
gpgme gave error: no passphrase
does anyone know what could have caused it? Although it says it has no
passphrase my key does has a passphrase and has been imported/export
into my keyring when I ran my script.
__
28 matches
Mail list logo
