Re: expiring gpg keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 David Shaw escribió: > On Jan 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Faramir wrote: > >> David Newman escribió: >>> Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short >>> expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. >> >> Well... I am not sure

Re: expiring gpg keys

On Jan 24, 2009, at 4:46 PM, Faramir wrote: David Newman escribió: Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. Well... I am not sure if that is a good idea... since if your key expires, you need to exchange signatures

Re: A question about Camellia

Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Doug Barton wrote: >> The AF's conclusion seems obvious, however it ignores a critical >> factor of the Navy's use case. > > The story is apocryphal, so it doesn't make much sense to talk > about the motives of the people involved -- it's fiction. Has every example you'

Re: A question about Camellia

Doug Barton wrote: > The AF's conclusion seems obvious, however it ignores a critical > factor of the Navy's use case. The story is apocryphal, so it doesn't make much sense to talk about the motives of the people involved -- it's fiction. But even were it true, I'd be hard-pressed to agree that

Re: A question about Camellia

Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Faramir wrote: >> Well, I don't think you are crazy, but I am part of the group that >> likes to be able to chose between several options, provided all the >> options are secure. > > That "provided" is the sticking point. Small is beautiful, IMO. YMMV. I agree that s

Re: expiring gpg keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 David Newman escribió: > Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short > expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. Well... I am not sure if that is a good idea... since if your key expires, you need to exchange signat

Re: expiring gpg keys

David Newman (25.01.2009 01:15): > Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short > expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. > > Would an expired key still work into the future? If, for example, I > sign/encrypt a file today using a key that expires next year, would I

Re: A question about Camellia

On Jan 24, 2009, at 1:29 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: David Shaw wrote: But then, once we have algorithm agility, that means we must have a means for dealing with that agility (preference lists being the defined OpenPGP mechanism for that). And then, having such means, why do we care all that m

Re: expiring gpg keys

On Jan 24, 2009, at 2:15 PM, David Newman wrote: Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. Would an expired key still work into the future? If, for example, I sign/encrypt a file today using a key that expires next year

expiring gpg keys

Michael Lucas' gpg/pgp book recommends setting a relatively short expiration time, such as a year, for personal keys. Would an expired key still work into the future? If, for example, I sign/encrypt a file today using a key that expires next year, would I be able to decrypt the file three years fr

Re: compatibility of Gnupg-1.4.9 to Gnupg-1.0.6

On Saturday 24 January 2009 17:50:49 David Shaw wrote: > On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Anne Wilson wrote: > > On Saturday 24 January 2009 04:59:29 David Shaw wrote: > >> On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> I have an issue which is described below: > >>> > >>> earlie

Re: A question about Camellia

David Shaw wrote: > But then, once we have algorithm agility, that means we must have a > means for dealing with that agility (preference lists being the > defined OpenPGP mechanism for that). And then, having such means, > why do we care all that much whether an algorithm is present or not? To

Re: A question about Camellia

On Jan 24, 2009, at 12:44 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: David Shaw wrote: OpenPGP benefits from the flexibility of being able to use multiple algorithms. The ability to use multiple algorithms is independent of how many algorithms are in the spec and in each implementation. Algorithm agility i

Re: OT: virus on the wild?

Graham Todd wrote the following on 1/24/09 11:08 AM: [...] > A good hosts file is a good second line of defence and you can get one > at : > > http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm Great for Win users. Thanks. Mac users might find this interesting:

Re: compatibility of Gnupg-1.4.9 to Gnupg-1.0.6

On Jan 24, 2009, at 3:19 AM, Anne Wilson wrote: On Saturday 24 January 2009 04:59:29 David Shaw wrote: On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote: Hi all, I have an issue which is described below: earlier i was using Gnupg-1.0.6 for my appliaction. Now i have replaced it with Gnupg-1.4.

Re: OT: virus on the wild?

On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:49:40 -0500 Charly Avital wrote: > > Bingo! I found it... > > http://www.technipages.com/disable-the-firefox-prefetch-setting.html > > Great, thank you! [snipped] When you get a URL such as this (or an IP number), add them at the bottom of yours hosts file in /etc/hos

Re: OT: virus on the wild?

FWIW, Camino is a branch from Firefox and this same discussion applies to it --dan ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: compatibility of Gnupg-1.4.9 to Gnupg-1.0.6

Anne Wilson wrote the following on 1/24/09 3:19 AM: >> On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote: [...] > as for Gnupg-1.4.9 ~.gnupg/gpg.conf and ~.gnupg/options are default options > file. David Shaw indicated: >> In the GPG tarball, in the "tools" directory, there is a script >> "convert

Re: compatibility of Gnupg-1.4.9 to Gnupg-1.0.6

On Saturday 24 January 2009 04:59:29 David Shaw wrote: > On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have an issue which is described below: > > > > earlier i was using Gnupg-1.0.6 for my appliaction. Now i have > > replaced it > > with Gnupg-1.4.9. > > I am facing some issu