Poldi 0.4 has been released. Poldi is our PAM module, which implements
authentication through the OpenPGP smartcard.
It can be fetched from:
ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/poldi/poldi-0.4.tar.bz2
ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/poldi/poldi-0.4.tar.bz2.asc
Changes since version 0.3 are:
* Man
GNUMD wrote:
> Is there a MAC OS installer, I am trying to get a colleague who uses
> MAC to get and user GNUPG. She doesn't know what she is doing or what
> to install.
http://macgpg.sourceforge.net. The version there is a little out of
date, but it's still the easiest to install package.
A di
Is there a MAC OS installer, I am trying to get a colleague who uses
MAC to get and user GNUPG. She doesn't know what she is doing or what
to install.
I appreciate any help, I know nothing about Macs, and really don't
want to know much about them. I thought the GNUPG site would have an
installer
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> The issue I was reporting was that this option doesn't seem to do
>> anything at all, at least for armoured messages. I haven't done any
>> further testing. Are you say
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:54:13AM -0600, Eliot, Christopher wrote:
> gpg `find . -type f`
> will get you pretty close.
Close, but if you've got lots of files, you'll hit the maximum command
line length limit.
--
David Smith| Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380Home: +44 (0)1454 616963
STMicroel
gpg `find . -type f`
will get you pretty close.
Topher Eliot
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[]
> Dear List Members,
>
> Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a
> directory, similarly
> to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ?
>
> Thanks.
___
Gnupg-users mai
Dear List Members,
Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a directory, similarly
to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ?
Thanks.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I hope that the others bank do have such security consideration and
don't send clear message with their consultant !
- --
Arnaud
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJImxMpAAoJEFgy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
for me the question is different, how many person will have to deal
with the keys ? The better is one pair of key per person ! so only one
person know the secret...
if you have five person, one for each bank, the better will be 5 key.
because if you ch
Anyone else is really frightend by this question and prays that your bank is
not part of those that this guy is consulting?
--- On Tue, 8/5/08, proxy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: proxy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Multiple clients
> To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2
On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Farkas, Illes wrote:
> Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a directory, similarly
> to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ?
find -type f -exec gpg --encrypt-files '{}' --recipient \;
HTH...
--
David Smith| Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380Hom
On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:37, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The issue I was reporting was that this option doesn't seem to do
> anything at all, at least for armoured messages. I haven't done any
> further testing. Are you saying that this is a dummy option?
Right, it has never worked with armoured mes
Hello, I am trying to understand the Best Practice for the follwing situation
We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted bank statements from
them. Now the question here is should we need to have Separate Public Keys
for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 different pub
Hi,
I have some questions :
1. The GnuPG documentation states that "--export-secret-key" is "a
security risk". Since no passphrase is asked, I imagine the exported
key is not clear text. So why is it a security risk ? Because it would
make it impossible (useless) to change the secret key passphrase
On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>* By default, do not allow processing multiple plaintexts in a
> single stream. Many programs that called GnuPG were assuming
> that GnuPG did not permit this, and were thus not using the
> plaintext bounda
On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> The option appears to be ignored whether or not I read from the file
> or provide the blocks on stdin and whether or not I use the explicit
> --decrypt option.
Frankly, that option is only for backward compatibility when we removed
that feature
16 matches
Mail list logo
