On 3/14/2012 12:44 AM, brian m. carlson wrote:
> From looking at the source, I don't believe so. Note that the only case
> in which you have more than one option is Windows/DOS.
GnuPG compiles just fine under the Intel C/C++ compilers, under the GNU
Compiler Collection, under Sun Studio, under AI
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 01:24:06PM -0400, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Is there any command that tells how the gnupg version was compiled?
>
> gpg --version
> doesn't list it.
>
> A simple way to find out is to do
> gpg --armor filename
> [or any other command resulting in gpg .asc file],
> a
On Mar 13, 2012 4:37 PM, "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>
> > RSA is not an encryption algorithm. RSA is a means of exchanging
> > keys.
>
> You may be thinking of the Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Algorithm
> (DHKEA). You're not thinking of RSA, though: RSA unquestionably is an
> encryption algorithm.
> RSA is not an encryption algorithm. RSA is a means of exchanging
> keys.
You may be thinking of the Diffie-Hellman Key Exchange Algorithm
(DHKEA). You're not thinking of RSA, though: RSA unquestionably is an
encryption algorithm.
___
Gnupg-users ma
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:02, jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com <
jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >If you choose to use someone's public certificate to encrypt a message,
> >they use the private part of that certificate to decrypt it -- different
> >things for encryption and decryption, thus a differ
> So its not really safe, is it?
I have answered this question so many times that I'm just going to refer
you to what I wrote on it several years ago:
http://sixdemonbag.org/cryptofaq.xhtml#entropy
(You will need to use Firefox or Chrome; IE doesn't support XHTML. The
math looks best in
On Tuesday 13 March 2012, jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >It isn't RSA because this is symmetric encryption. CAST5 is a
> >128-bit block cypher.
>
> So its not really safe, is it?
Why do you think so? Define "really safe".
> @Robert
>
> >If you choose to use someone's public certificate t
>It isn't RSA because this is symmetric encryption. CAST5 is a 128-bit block
>cypher.
So its not really safe, is it?
@Robert
>If you choose to use someone's public certificate to encrypt a message,
>they use the private part of that certificate to decrypt it -- different
>things for encryption
On 3/13/2012 8:36 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Would you explain that? Do symmetric algorithms never have an MDC or does
> just
> CAST5 not (why is it the default then)?
Back when PGP5 was first released, PRZ needed a symmetric cipher to
replace the patent-encumbered IDEA. He could've used 3DES bu
Am Dienstag, 13. März 2012, 13:15:26 schrieb Robert J. Hansen:
> On 3/13/2012 7:09 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
> > Because this is symmetric encryption. You would need to sign the data
> > to get integrity protection.
>
> This isn't quite right. He's getting warned about the lack of an MDC,
> wh
On Mar 13, 2012 8:15 AM, "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>
> On 3/13/2012 7:09 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
> > Because this is symmetric encryption. You would need to sign the data
> > to get integrity protection.
>
> This isn't quite right. He's getting warned about the lack of an MDC,
> which is rel
On 3/13/2012 7:09 AM, Eric Christensen wrote:
> Because this is symmetric encryption. You would need to sign the data
> to get integrity protection.
This isn't quite right. He's getting warned about the lack of an MDC,
which is related to the symmetric algorithm choice.
___
On 3/13/2012 5:01 AM, jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com wrote:
> What does mean CAST5 and is it a safe alghorithmus? Why not RSA?
CAST5 is the default symmetric algorithm for GnuPG and PGP. It is
generally accepted to be secure against cryptanalysis.
Broadly speaking, ciphers can be broken down into eit
On Mar 13, 2012 6:23 AM, "jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com" <
jpemail2001-...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> gpg: CAST5 encrypted data
> gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase
> Test message
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
>
-
Hello,
I´ve encrypted some text to try out the passphrase-only encryption.
I´ve got this "error" after decryting the message although the message was
decrypted correctly.
-
C:\gnupg>gpg --decrypt doc.gpg
gpg:
Big thanks to Daniel who helped me once again by putting me on the right
track.
On 07/03/12 21:16, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> "editing" a revocation certificate doesn't make much sense, since if you
> modify the certificate, you'll invalidate the signature. Better to
> think of it as discarding
Hi,
I'm having trouble compiling gnupg v2.0.18. I'm compiling with
cd /usr/opt/contrib/gnupg
/usr/src/contrib/gnupg/configure --prefix=/usr
make -j4
gcc 4.6.2
freebsd 10.0-CURRENT amd64
(umm, kinda, i've been replacing all the ancient gplv2 with latest gplv3
software, it's in a transitional st
17 matches
Mail list logo
