if yes , can i add it to my installer ?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 00:26, Faramir wrote:
> I don't have an knowledge about compression algos, so I assume you are
> right. However, we can disable GPG's compression to avoid that problem.
> What is the advantage of encrypting data with OpenSSL over GPG?
>
More control over what's happening
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 16-05-2011 12:35, Jerome Baum escribió:
...
> In the worst case, you may be looking at loosing everything from the
> corruption point onwards, assuming some kind of stream compression. This
> is IIRC the default for GnuPG when it encrypts. Otherwi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 16 May 2011 at 1:04:33 PM, in
, Turbo
Fredriksson wrote:
> Build a man a fire, and he will be warm for the
> night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the
> rest of his life.
Priceless (-:
- --
Best regards
MFPA
On Mon, 16 May 2011 11:32:15 -0600, Steve Strobel
wrote:
> root:~> gpg --import test-key.gpg
> gpg: key CBF38289 was created 137948617 seconds in the future
> (time warp or clock problem)
This is exactly what it sounds like: according to your certificate, it was
created ab
I am using gnupg to encrypt and sign a file transferred from a
server to an embedded client. I generated a 2048 bit RSA keypair on
the server (using gpg V1.4.6) with "gpg --gen-key" and got the output:
gpg: key CBF38289 marked as ultimately trusted
public and secret key created
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 17:32, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> Now, I tried to just remove the binary chars, but that ended up with a line
> which is shorter than the others which I doubt will work (it would take me
> almost a day to find out - slow USB1 disks), so any idea on how to proceed
> would b
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:30 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 22:42, zirconiumnz...@gmail.com said:
>
>> Werner if you read this thread please reply. Thanks.
>
> I don't understand the context, what was your question? How to disable a
> certain algorithm? (--disable-cipher NAME).
>
>
On 16 maj 2011, at 15.46, Jerome Baum wrote:On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 14:04, Turbo Fredriksson wrote: I now managed to find the problematic line(s).archive1.02805470206000 d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de 5470207000 d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad deThes
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 14:04, Turbo Fredriksson wrote:
> I now managed to find the problematic line(s).
>
> archive1.0280
> 5470206000 d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de
> 5470207000 d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de
>
> These are the only lines I've found so far...
>
I now managed to find the problematic line(s).
archive1.0280
5470206000 d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de d0 00 ad de
5470207000 d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de d1 00 ad de
These are the only lines I've found so far...
Now, what does this mean?! :)
--
Build a man a fire, and he will be
On Sat, 14 May 2011 22:42, zirconiumnz...@gmail.com said:
> Werner if you read this thread please reply. Thanks.
I don't understand the context, what was your question? How to disable a
certain algorithm? (--disable-cipher NAME).
I recall that there was a long thread abouth something with signa
On Thu, 12 May 2011 04:49, li...@mgreg.com said:
> I am writing application in which I need to know if a GnuPG encrypted
> message was sent to me. It seems that whenever you list the
> recipients of a message it will list every recipient but you -- even
> if you're one of them. Surely there's a
13 matches
Mail list logo