10/9/2013 14:19, Werner Koch wrote :
So what about using that free USB stack for AVR's to implement a flash
device? You would be able to audit about everything; flylogic even has
these nice pictures of the ATmega88 masks...
10/9/2013 16:33, David Smith wrote:
AVR is a semiconductor manufactu
On 09/10/2013 02:23 PM, Adam Gold wrote:
> To enable gpg support in mutt I copied /usr/share/doc/mutt/examples/gpg.rc to
> ~/.mutt and then added 'source ~/.mutt/gpg.rc' to the mutt config file. I
> also added to the config a number of lines as per here:
> http://pastebin.com/t17HcrCS
>
> If
> -Original Message-
> From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor [mailto:d...@fifthhorseman.net]
> Sent: 10 September 2013 15:59
> To: Adam Gold
> Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: message digest for signed emails
>
> gpg is not a mail user agent. what are you using to send mail? how is it
> conn
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
GPG supports the feature of having multiple UIDs per key.
However this requires special care of anyone signing such a key.
AFAIK, there is no really user-friendly, and definitely no
newbie-friendly way to do so. IMO this makes it much harder to expand
On 09/10/2013 11:10 AM, Josef Schneider wrote:
> Why? Assuming the Keys are not related (e.g. by creating random keys
> and then encrypting them both with RSA) this is safer, assuming the
> attacker can crack one of the two symmetric ciphers but not RSA.
I repeat my earlier message:
> If you lo
On 09/10/2013 03:01 PM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> GPG supports the feature of having multiple UIDs per key.
> However this requires special care of anyone signing such a key.
> AFAIK, there is no really user-friendly, and definitely no
> newbie-friendly way to do so.
Please try out monkeysign
If you are upgrading, I would recommend contacting those that you
previously had keysigning with and see if the policy they follow
allows for obtaining re-signatures based on prior information.
My key signing policy [1] allows for an "Accelerated Signing" where I
may opt to sign a users' key given
On 09/10/2013 12:47 PM, AdamC wrote:
> I have keys that I have used (sparingly) since 2004. This is a 1024
> keysize. That keypair has a few signatures through key signing.
>
> What is the best approach to upgrading keys to 4096? Is it just create a
> new keypair and then go to lots of key signing
I have keys that I have used (sparingly) since 2004. This is a 1024
keysize. That keypair has a few signatures through key signing.
What is the best approach to upgrading keys to 4096? Is it just create a
new keypair and then go to lots of key signing events again (pain), or is
there a way to do t
On 09/10/2013 09:12 AM, Adam Gold wrote:
> My gpg.conf contains the following lines:
>
> default-preference-list SHA512 SHA256 SHA384 SHA224 SHA1 AES256 AES192 AES
> CAST5 3DES ZLIB BZIP2 ZIP Uncompressed
> personal-digest-preferences SHA512 SHA256 SHA384 SHA224 SHA1
the lines above look like th
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:30 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Assuming it takes effort a to break cipher A and effort b to break
> > cipher b, this should result in effort at least max(a, b) needed to
> > break A+B.
>
> Basically, though, it's "this is a naive and unfounded assumption."
>
Why? As
Spoke too soon. The wrong path was part of the problem, but I’m still having
the issue:
Mainframe calls .bat file that calls C# application that calls second .bat file
to call GnuPG to decrypt a file. Once decrypted, other stuff happens, e-mails
are sent, blah, blah, blah.
Here's the issue:
On 09/10/13 15:16, Jan wrote:
> I don't understand this, what does AVR etc. mean? Is there a substituion for
> USB? I'd be grateful for an explanation.
AVR is a semiconductor manufacturer who make microcontrollers (amongst
other things).
___
Gnupg-user
I apologise in advance if this is a repeat question (I have consulted the
archives although not exhaustively) but I've been trying to get this right
for two days now to no avail. I want the message digest for my emails to be
SHA512 (or SHA256) but I can't seem to change it from SHA1. I have tried
Il 10/09/2013 14:19, Werner Koch ha scritto:
>> First error: USB is *not* a peer protocol. It's master-slave. FireWire
>> is a peer protocol.
> However, that is implemented by computers at boths ends and the software
> there may have backdoors or explotable code which coult be used for all
> kind
On 10/9/2013 14:19, Werner Koch wrote :
However, [USB] is implemented by computers at boths ends and the software
there may have backdoors or explotable code which coult be used for all
kind of tricks [...]
I am shocked! Why was USB constructed that insecure?!
On 10/9/2013 14:19, Werner Koch w
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
> I have not heard of the primary certification key before. Is it the
> 'C' in 'usage: SCEA'?
Yes. The certification key is used when signing (more properly,
"certifying") other people's public keys.
A signing key can be used for signing files or
On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> There are several problems with overlong encryption keys, to name just
> two:
>
> - If you use an 8k encryption key you should also use an 8k primary
>certification key because that is the key which is used to keep the
>parts of an
On 9/10/2013 6:35 AM, Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
> I wonder if it would be a good idea to have an option to combine
> symmetric ciphers, e.g. users could state a preference list like
> this:
No. This idea gets floated every few years and the answers never
change. It's not a good idea. If you
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 09:50, ndk.cla...@gmail.com said:
> First error: USB is *not* a peer protocol. It's master-slave. FireWire
> is a peer protocol.
However, that is implemented by computers at boths ends and the software
there may have backdoors or explotable code which coult be used for all
kin
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 23:38, do...@dougbarton.us said:
> It's worth noting for sake of argument that the same exact concerns
> apply to the pre-packaged binaries of GnuPG for Windows.
The difference is that it is possible to build it on your own. If you
are concerened, please do that.
I would be
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 15:44, marcio.barb...@gmail.com said:
> This whole NSA blackmailing situation is causing strange reactions in you,
> sir.
This has nothing to do with the NSA. There are two reasons:
I don't like to switch tasks too often. My main way of communication is
by mail and I I read
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/10/2013 05:35 AM, Paul R. Ramer wrote:
> Anthony Papillion wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512
>>
>> Is there a good way to add authentication capabilities to an
>> existing RSA key? I see how to toggle it if I create a
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 11:26, y...@yyy.id.lv said:
> This is only a problem to user who choose to use 8k key, not to anyone else.
Given that it is related two my second point, it is a problem for
everyone - as long as we use some kind of multi party trust evaluation.
With a simple TOFC scheme (local
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:35, p...@spth.de said:
> I wonder if it would be a good idea to have an option to combine
> symmetric ciphers, e.g. users could state a preference list like this:
Which requires more entropy for the two keys and thus creating an
incentive to use a faster and more insure RNG.
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 12:35, free10...@gmail.com said:
> As far as I know, there is no such capability to do that with gpg. You have
> to set that capability when you create the key. HTH.
Right, you need to change the source to add such a feature. I agree
that adding a way to add an authenticat
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:48, ved...@nym.hush.com said:
> Is there something really basic that I missed?
No. Use the command line for such tasks.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
___
Gnupg-users
Philipp Klaus Krause wrote:
>I wonder if it would be a good idea to have an option to combine
>symmetric ciphers, e.g. users could state a preference list like this:
>
>TWOFISH+AES256 3DES+BLOWFISH+AES AES 3DES
>
>The meaning of A+B would be to encrypt using A first, and then encrypt
>the result u
Anthony Papillion wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA512
>
>Is there a good way to add authentication capabilities to an existing
>RSA key? I see how to toggle it if I create a new subkey but not how
>to add it to an existing key.
[snip]
Hello Anthony,
As far as I know, there i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I wonder if it would be a good idea to have an option to combine
symmetric ciphers, e.g. users could state a preference list like this:
TWOFISH+AES256 3DES+BLOWFISH+AES AES 3DES
The meaning of A+B would be to encrypt using A first, and then encrypt
t
- Original Message -
From: "Werner Koch"
To: "Pete Stephenson"
Cc: "GnuPG Users Mailing List"
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2013 12:07 PM
Subject: Re: Problems using 10kbit keys in GnuPG instead of 4kbit keys
- Some MUA decrypt messages on the fly while you are browsing through
al
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 21:41, p...@heypete.com said:
> Werner would change the hard-coded maximum keysize from the current
> 4096 to, say 8192 (or 15,360 or 16,384) bits so that users who desired
As of now I see no reason at all to lift this limit. It is there for a
good reason, namely making crypt
Il 10/09/2013 00:29, Pete Stephenson ha scritto:
>> USB is a peer protocol. There's an astonishing amount of computational
>> power on both sides of that USB cable. Protocol negotiation is complex.
>> Put it all together and you get a peer-to-peer protocol which you
>> *cannot* secure because (
"Diaz, John, A" wrote:
>Paul, got it figured out. Programmer too stupid. The path to gpg.exe
>had changed, and I didn't catch it.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Paul R. Ramer [mailto:free10...@gmail.com]
>Sent: Saturday, September 07, 2013 2:22 PM
>To: Diaz, John, A
>Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Is there a good way to add authentication capabilities to an existing
RSA key? I see how to toggle it if I create a new subkey but not how
to add it to an existing key.
Thanks,
Anthony
- --
Anthony Papillion
XMPP/Jabber: cypherp...@patts.us
O
35 matches
Mail list logo
