On Sep 24, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Phil Brooke wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Sep 2010, David Shaw wrote:
>> There is actually a defined field for this in OpenPGP (see section 5.2.3.22,
>> Signer's User ID). I don't think anyone implements it though.
>
> Is there any particular difficulty or reason for it not b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 27 September 2010 at 8:14:31 PM, in
, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> Hmm, maybe I miss the point, but hey, we're living in
> the age where dual- and quadcore processors are as
> common as our daily bread,
In "proper" computers. But in mobile
BradBlake wrote:
> I could REALLY use some assistance – I need to encrypt a file with gpg (my
> Linux server is on version 1.2.6), I need to encrypt it with the public key
> from our client, and sign it with our private PGP key. I’ve got this all
> working (I imported their public key, and sent the
Hi all,
I could REALLY use some assistance - I need to encrypt a file with gpg (my
server is on version 1.2.6), I need to encrypt it with the public key from our
client, and sign it with our private PGP key. I've got this all working (I
imported their public key, and sent them our key), so I ca
Hi all,
I could REALLY use some assistance – I need to encrypt a file with gpg (my
Linux server is on version 1.2.6), I need to encrypt it with the public key
from our client, and sign it with our private PGP key. I’ve got this all
working (I imported their public key, and sent them our key), so
On 27.09.2010, Vjaceslavs Klimovs wrote:
> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
> input too.
Hmm, maybe I miss the point, but hey, we're living in the age where dual-
and quadcore processors
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 21:25:21 +0200, Ludwig Hügelschäfer
wrote:
> Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a
> reaction. This is where the human mind is starting to think there's
> something wrong.
We should be careful not to overstate the impatience of users too much.
I'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote on 27.09.10 15:57:
> "Dreadfully" is a difficult thing to enumerate anyway. For me, FWIW, it
> would be "over 1-2 seconds".
Ack. 1.5 seconds is about the limit where a good GUI should issue a
reaction. This is where the human min
On 09/27/2010 10:55 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:28:07 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
> wrote:
>> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
>> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
>> input too.
>
> I think this is re
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> David Smith wrote:
>> Not truly "quantitative", but I notice a significant difference
>> between encrypting emails to people with 1024-bit keys vs people with
>> 4096-bit keys. I'd say that the difference is in the order 3-6
>> seconds.
>
>> I'm running GnuPG 1.4.x on a
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:28:07 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
wrote:
> 2048 bit keys are suitable - it's "user+sys" what matters in this case,
> but not "real" by all means, as that includes waiting for passphrase
> input too.
I think this is really a UI issue, in which case "real" is what you
really c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Smith wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards.
>>> It also will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are
>>> communicating with) eve
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:56:52 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
wrote:
> I did some quick tests on Nokia N900 (600 MHz ARM CPU), with gnupg
> 1.4.6, here is what I got:
>
> Encrypting and signing, 2048 bit RSA keys:
>
> real0m 2.50s
> user 0m 0.50s
> sys 0m 0.02s
>
> Decrypting and verifying, 20
On 27/09/10 16:21, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 15:56:52 +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs
> wrote:
>> I did some quick tests on Nokia N900 (600 MHz ARM CPU), with gnupg
>> 1.4.6, here is what I got:
>>
>> Encrypting and signing, 2048 bit RSA keys:
>>
>> real0m 2.50s
>> user 0m 0.50s
On 09/27/2010 05:12 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Not truly "quantitative, but I notice a significant difference between
> encrypting emails to people with 1024-bit keys vs people with 4096-bit
> keys. I'd say that the difference is in the order 3-6 seconds.
ah, ok. i'll add encrypting messages to th
On Sep 24, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Are there other interpretations of the above results? does anyone else
> want to post comparable data points on different hardware? How powerful
> is a typical smartphone anyway? What kind of a cutoff are people
> willing to accept in te
On 27/09/10 11:12, David Smith wrote:
> Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards. It also
>>> will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are communicating with) ever
>>> uses the key on a small
Hi,
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 12:42:19PM +0200, Vjaceslavs Klimovs wrote:
> Thank you for all your replies. It seems that multiple separate keys is
> the way to go for me. Is it socially acceptable to ask someone to sign
> several keys, for example during key signing event? Is this a common
> occur
Hi,
Thank you for all your replies. It seems that multiple separate keys is
the way to go for me. Is it socially acceptable to ask someone to sign
several keys, for example during key signing event? Is this a common
occurrence?
___
Gnupg-users mailing li
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 09/24/2010 09:54 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> It won't work with the current generation of OpenPGP smartcards. It also
>> will be dreadfully slow if you (or someone you are communicating with) ever
>> uses the key on a small machine (think smart phone). If you are usu
20 matches
Mail list logo
