On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 18:30, t...@riseup.net said:
> Sounds almost reasonable. But why then GnuPG shows Ed25519 keys as eg.
> 'ed25519/52275F7A'? When someone trying to generate 'Curve25519-signing
> key' they'll get ed25519 key. "Maybe I've done something wrong? I should
Well, given that you used
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 11:17, dongsheng.s...@gmail.com said:
> Yes, I build gnupg 2.1.7 for 32 bit and 64 bit Windows with the latest
> libgcrypt and pinentry.
Funny, 64 bit Windows is not supported by GnuPG.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
Werner Koch:
> That is actually on purpose. Both are based on the same curve and it
> seems easier to just call it Curve25519 than to explain why we use a
> different variant for signing. After all Curve25519 is a well known
> term.
Sounds almost reasonable. But why then GnuPG shows Ed25519 keys
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:45, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
> Less complex by introducing communication issues between all separate
> parts? We clearly have a different idea of complexity. Separartion of
So be it.
> tasks does not automatically mean separate binaries. That used to be the
> Unix phi
On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 03:37, t...@riseup.net said:
> I'm also not able to generate keys in 2.1.7 on my Gentoo machine. It
> generates Ed25519 without errors (a typo: GnuPG says that it would use
> Curve25519 for signature not Ed25519). Because there is no option to
That is actually on purpose. Both
Hi,
On Monday, August 31, 2015 07:07:03 PM Andre Heinecke wrote:
> If I use the pinentry-basic included in the gnupg-w32 installer I get the
> "No pinentry" error.
> So it looks like pinentry-basic also has a Problem on Windows > 8.1
This was a problem in my test setup. I probably had gpg4win ins
On 2015-09-02 14:33, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> On 09/02/2015 10:37 AM, Ivan Markin wrote:
>> I'm also not able to generate keys in 2.1.7 on my Gentoo machine. It
>> generates Ed25519 without errors (a typo: GnuPG says that it would use
>> Curve25519 for signature not Ed25519). Because there is no optio
On 27.08.2015, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I had someone wonder why the FAQ recommends avoiding CAST, BLOWFISH,
> IDEA, or 3DES for bulk encryption.
> Q: Why should some ciphers be avoided for bulk encryption?
"Some ciphers" is probably not enough for those who frequently ask
about that topic. I
