Greetings,
I have a program that will frequently need to store modest-size
chunks of of data on disk, perhaps 1-4kB per chunk. The data is
sensitive, but not ultra top secret. I would like to make a
reasonable effort to keep it from prying eyes. After being stored,
the data will later on need
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 13 October 2014 at 5:40:06 PM, in
, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> However, "public key" is ill-defined without context.
> It can also refer to the whole thing with UID's and
> signatures and so on, which is not what I mean in this
> contex
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 18:33:10 +0200
Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 13/10/14 18:17, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> > I suppose the revocation certificate being a kind of replacement of
> > my public key. As it is bound to the fingerprint of a key pair it
> > can mark the key pair revoked as a whole. I suppose
On 13/10/14 18:33, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> PS: You could nitpick about "bound to the fingerprint", I think it
> should be "bound to the public key itself". But it makes no real
> difference, I'm just being fussy.
In fact, I think it is more informative to think of it being bound to
the fingerprint,
On 13/10/14 18:17, Dr. Peter Voigt wrote:
> I suppose the revocation certificate being a kind of replacement of my
> public key. As it is bound to the fingerprint of a key pair it can mark
> the key pair revoked as a whole. I suppose such a key can never be
> activated again. This is somewhat oppos
On Mon, 13 Oct 2014 00:35:20 +0200
Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am So 12.10.2014, 23:35:16 schrieb Dr. Peter Voigt:
> > Can I still use my existing revocation certificate with my key pair
>
> Yes.
>
>
Thanks to all confirming my assumption.
> > I am supposing the revocation certificate just refers to
