Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 12/4/2012 3:03 PM, sben1783 wrote: > Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its > original name. I'm still interested whether this would be "insecure"? Let's not even use the word insecure, since that word is wholly subjective: there's no agreed-upon definition for what

Re: Seperate Master Key and signing/encrypting subkeys method

2012-12-04 Thread Faramir
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 04-12-2012 18:18, Allen Schultz escribió: > GnuPG-Users: > > I was wondering where that article was about seperating the master > key from daily subkeys (both signing and encrypting). I can't seem > to find it. Are there other articles on the s

Seperate Master Key and signing/encrypting subkeys method

2012-12-04 Thread Allen Schultz
GnuPG-Users: I was wondering where that article was about seperating the master key from daily subkeys (both signing and encrypting). I can't seem to find it. Are there other articles on the similar methodologies that are still secure. And is it still recommended that I sign another's keys with th

Re: Keypad support for PC/SC card readers?

2012-12-04 Thread Selene Feigl
Hello I trid it with gnupg 2.0.19-1 from debian testing - PIN is not requested from the card reader. here is the log file. I did use testing keys and non-productive PIN so I hope I did not post anything sensitive 2012-12-04 22:05:10 scdaemon[16008] listening on socket `/tmp/gpg-iJ5FQq/S.scdae

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread sben1783
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:40:22 +0200, "yyy" wrote: There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give much in the way of secrecy. It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not name. Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its original n

Fwd: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Nicholas Cole
Meant to post this to the list. Blame gmail. -- Forwarded message -- From: Nicholas Cole Date: Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM Subject: Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both? To: Hubert Kario > How do you propose an attacker could force me to sign dat

Fwd: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Tuesday 04 of December 2012 16:07:26 Nicholas Cole wrote: >> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: >> > On Monday 03 of December 2012 12:41:10 Hauke Laging wrote: >> >> Do any problems arise with the smartcard if the same key

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Hubert Kario
On Tuesday 04 of December 2012 16:07:26 Nicholas Cole wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > > On Monday 03 of December 2012 12:41:10 Hauke Laging wrote: > >> Do any problems arise with the smartcard if the same key shall do > >> different > >> tasks? > > > > Keys can bec

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Hubert Kario
On Tuesday 04 of December 2012 16:07:26 Nicholas Cole wrote: > On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > > On Monday 03 of December 2012 12:41:10 Hauke Laging wrote: > >> Hello, > >> > >> are there arguments for preferring either > >> > >> a) having one RSA subkey for decryption onl

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Nicholas Cole
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Monday 03 of December 2012 12:41:10 Hauke Laging wrote: >> 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 b

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Peter Lebbing
RFC 4880 says this in the "Security Considerations" part: > * Many security protocol designers think that it is a bad idea to use > a single key for both privacy (encryption) and integrity > (signatures). In fact, this was one of the motivating forces > behind the V4 key format w

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Hubert Kario
On Tuesday 04 of December 2012 14:14:34 Hauke Laging wrote: > Am Di 04.12.2012, 13:19:11 schrieb Hubert Kario: > > Keys can become "used up" so it entirely depends on how often you use it. > > > > What I mean by that, is that any signing operation leaks some information > > about the key used for

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread yyy
There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give much in the way of secrecy. It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not name. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Hauke Laging
Am Di 04.12.2012, 13:19:11 schrieb Hubert Kario: > Keys can become "used up" so it entirely depends on how often you use it. > > What I mean by that, is that any signing operation leaks some information > about the key used for signing (generally far less than few tens of a bit). > If you have sig

Re: Seperate RSA subkeys for decryption and signing or one for both?

2012-12-04 Thread Hubert Kario
On Monday 03 of December 2012 12:41:10 Hauke Laging wrote: > 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 t