On 11/30/2012 05:07 PM, Ben Staude wrote:
> I'm thinking about a scenario for remote backup with gpg-encrypted files
> (--symmetric, one by one). In addition to encrypting the files contents,
> I'd like to hide their names also.
There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give
Yup, Sovereign Keys is awesome. I hadn't looked it up since thinking
more about the importance of having a single mapping but on a quick
re-read I understand it as follows:
Sovereign keys has a very strict requirement for changing this mapping
as domain names should. ie. Only a key revocation can
On 2012-12-02 at 23:46 -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> Hmm. Were you intending to test with the internal HTTP support or
> with libcurl? You're currently built with internal support:
Ah. I couldn't tell, since the helper binaries are installed and
nothing explicitly said so. I used whatever FreeBSD
Hi all,
I'm thinking about a scenario for remote backup with gpg-encrypted files
(--symmetric, one by one). In addition to encrypting the files contents,
I'd like to hide their names also.
My backup tool can do the gpg-part for me (i.e. encrypt every file when
backing it up) and it creates a
Hi Patrick,
Have you seen EFF's Sovereign Keys project? It attempts to establish a
distributed single-mapping database of cert <-> domain.
Also see the schemes in https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0015, altough they
create new handles rather than try to capture existing ones.
___
On 2012-12-02 at 10:23 -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2012, at 10:20 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
> > GnuPG folks (since this is cross-posted, if my mail makes it through):
> >
> > there is a bug in GnuPG's SRV handling, I've identified where I think
> > it is, it's in the second block of text f
On 2012-12-02 at 23:46 -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> I tried talking to keytest.spodhuis.org to test, but all the ports
> returned in the SRV were not listening. Or at least, not listening to
> me ;)
*blush*
Fixed, sorry.
-Phil
___
Gnupg-users mailing l
I'm now running version 1.4.9 and everything works just fine.
Thank you.
Matteo
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Nov 2012 17:29, due...@gmail.com said:
>
> > I downloaded GPG W32 1.0.6-2 on a Windows machine.
>
> This is a 11 years old version og GnuPG! You sho
> [1] Instead of encrypting the entire USB, put several truecrypt voulmes on
> the USB, and leave a good amount of empty space on the USB , (e.g. 4 gig) ,
> that you don't use for anything but the files you want to print or scan.
Yes, USB Sticks all get sold with an MBR,
but few end users seem t
On Sunday, December 02, 2012 at 3:16 PM, "Richard Höchenberger"
wrote:
>I was wondering whether there are USB flash memory devices
>available that support some kind of hardware encryption, i.e. maybe some USB
>key with a keypad, which only exposes a (transparently) decrypted
>filesystem to
Not to discount the value of media with built-in encryption hardware,
but...maybe you should also try the same methods as secure couriers in
the movies: attach the USB drive to a cord or chain clamped to your
wrist, so that it can't leave you without your knowledge. You can
probably adapt a simple
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi Len,
> I used PGP years ago and created key pairs. I should probably create new
> ones. Is there any good reason I should keep my old decryption keys?
you must distinguish between using your old keys for new messages/files and
keeping them t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi Richard,
you look for a thumb drive that supports some kind of hardware encryption and
can operate OS independent and be accessed as plain FAT.
I use and recommend http://www.bioslimdisk.com/p_signaturelite.html
Works 100% self contained. But
Am So 02.12.2012, 21:59:11 schrieb Len Cooley:
> But, these are old keys. I should probably create new ones. Is
> there any good reason I should keep my old decryption keys?
What do you mean by keep? Not to delete the private keys?
If you have not needed these keys for years then it is improbabl
Hello,
are there arguments for preferring either
a) having one RSA subkey for decryption only and one for signing only
or
b) having only one RSA subkey for both decryption and signing?
Do any problems arise with the smartcard if the same key shall do different
tasks?
Hauke
--
☺
PGP: 7D82 FB9
On Sun, 2 Dec 2012 10:57, cry...@artemicode.de said:
> I suppose gnupg tries to detect whether a keypad is available. Is that
> logged? Which debugging level would be needed.
2.0.19 has support for keypads via PC/SC. Add this to
~/.gnupg/scdaemon.conf
log-file /some/file
debug 2048
Shal
16 matches
Mail list logo
