On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:19 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> build-packet.c:build_sig_subpkt()
> sign.c:make_keysig_packet()
> sign.c:update_keysig_packet()
Thanks :-)
I'll have a look at it and come back to you if I should have questions ;-)
Peter
___
Gnup
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 05:22:01PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
> Hi David.
>
> One more thing on this:
>
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:18 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> >> Would gnupg understand these subpackets in a 0x1F signature?
> > Yes. It's a valid key as per the spec, even though no program actual
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 05:48:34PM +0100, Peter Thomas wrote:
> btw: This VIA thing is an onboard chip, right? It would be nice to
> have something available that I can buy on connect e.g. via USB and
> get support for gnupg :-)
Use a Whirlygig device plus rng-tools to integrate the hardware devic
On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 03:16:07AM -0800, rahul kaushik wrote:
>
> Hi All,
> Thanks for your attention towards my problem.
> One thing that i still would like to know about gpg is
> Is it possible for me to use keyring and trustdb of Gnupg-1.4.9 while using
> Gnupg-1.0.6. can keyring generated (
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:35 PM, Faramir wrote:
> Yes, but you made me remember the time I was studying physics (before
> I bailed out from that).
Ah :-)
> By the way, why do you need so much entropy? To ensure the quality of
> CAcert certificates?
Uhm,... to speed up my monster-65563-or-even-m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Peter Thomas escribió:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Faramir wrote:
>> Well, not if the sample emits beta particles, these are supposed to be
...
> Of course I know about the nature of the different kinds of radiation ;-)
> Just wanted to but
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Faramir wrote:
> Well, not if the sample emits beta particles, these are supposed to be
> easily blocked by some millimeters of skin, so as long as you don't
> touch them too much, they would be safe to use. But I suppose as beta
> radiation is composed of electro
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 7:00 PM, Benjamin Donnachie
wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Peter Thomas :
> Please please please stop starting new threads!
Sorry Benjamin. I thought it was better to somehow group my questions
according to what they're about. An normal mail user clients should
provide threaded views w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Peter Thomas escribió:
...
> Using a radioactive sample for gnupg key generation is probably a very
> bad idea,.. I mean image all of use getting cancer or so ^^
Well, not if the sample emits beta particles, these are supposed to be
easily blocked
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 9:31 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On some platforms, a hardware RNG actually ends up feeding /dev/random.
> This is particularly nice as it means GPG (or any program that uses
> /dev/random) benefits without code modification.
But this has a disadvantage if that hardware RNG is
2009/1/28 Ingo Klöcker :
> See http://www.fourmilab.ch/hotbits/ for a random number generator using
> radioactive decay.
>
> Under http://von-und-fuer-lau.de/ct-randcam.html you can download a
> (mostly) non-deterministic random number generator using a webcam. The
> page is in German.
This sounds
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:36 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Imagine you have a Geiger counter and a radioactive sample. Over each
> time frame, the Geiger counter reports how many decays it measures.
> That number becomes your random value. So far, so random, right?
Using a radioactive sample for
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Anyone who uses the Mersenne Twister to generate cryptographic
> pseudorandom values is living in sin.
xD ... Well I've read that "without modification it is not usable for
cryptography" so I thought maybe there is a modified version which
One more thing
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
>> It seems that it's quite easy to disable this limit in the gnupg
>> source, all I have to do is set max=something in keygen.c, correct?
> No, there is some limit in the RNG too.
I've grep'ed through the sources and there are ma
Hi David.
One more thing on this:
On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 5:18 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> Would gnupg understand these subpackets in a 0x1F signature?
> Yes. It's a valid key as per the spec, even though no program actually
> generates such a key that I know of. Note that I can't make that same
Hello,
I need some help on how to run the gpg agent in the batch mode without
the agent prompting for the pass phrase...
The situation is that we need two pass phrases to start the agent, and
now we wanna do the same in the batch mode as well, but the problem is
that these batches run on unattende
Hi All,
Thanks for your attention towards my problem.
One thing that i still would like to know about gpg is
Is it possible for me to use keyring and trustdb of Gnupg-1.4.9 while using
Gnupg-1.0.6. can keyring generated ( using --gen-key ) by Gnupg-1.4.9 be
used with gnupg-1.0.6.
What i think,
Sven Radde wrote:
> So it would appear that Evolution uses RFC 2015, skipping the obsolete MD5.
No. Jeff Anderson, Evolution's main GnuPG author, told me directly they
supported RFC3156. He went on at great length about how inline traffic
is stupid and it isn't RFC-approved for email use, and ho
On Jan 29, 2009, at 5:25 AM, Ramon Loureiro wrote:
Hi!
How can I get an output like this
gpg --list-keys --with-fingerprint --with-colons --fixed-list-mode
for an individual key?
The first command gives me:
fpr:BE8E51366A32B5EF01050DFBC5592ACB80C7D647:
uid:-1227007455::AF22C2EEE2
Hi!
David Shaw schrieb:
>> First, when sending a signed email from Evolution, SHA1 seems to be
>> chosen, no matter what "personal-digest-preferences" or even
>> "digest-algo" is set in the gpg.conf file (other parts of gpg.conf are
>> honored, however).
>> Is this a limitation of the PGP/MIME sta
Hi!
How can I get an output like this
gpg --list-keys --with-fingerprint --with-colons --fixed-list-mode
for an individual key?
The first command gives me:
fpr:BE8E51366A32B5EF01050DFBC5592ACB80C7D647:
uid:-1227007455::AF22C2EEE20225B675535975D39D55B385ED6EDA::Ramon
Loureiro Alonso:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 00:50, ds...@jabberwocky.com said:
> Yes. Or at least the current one is. There is a new version of the
> spec that allows for more hashes, but I don't believe there is a
The problem is that card checks that the correct padding, inclusive the
OID of the hash is used and thus
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 18:36, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> Linux has support for some hardware RNGs, yes. I don't know offhand
> which ones. OpenBSD apparently has support for a lot of them.
Using Libgcrypt (and thus GnuPG-2) on a modern VIA CPU will make use of
the Padlock engine's HW RNG as an a
23 matches
Mail list logo
