On 05/02/16 15:08, Oleg Gurevich wrote:
> with GnuPG modern (2.1) i can't delete anymore a secret key based on
> smartcard. Is there an known workaround ?
Do you want the key off your keyring or off your smartcard?
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You
... to delete key from the keyring
mit freundlichen Grüßen/ с уважением/ sincerely yours
Oleg Gurevich
PGP fingerprint: 38A0 D0CC BD23 1707 B0AF D158 E9D7 6E3F E74A 0B0C
> On 05 Feb 2016, at 19:36, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>
>> On 05/02/16 15:08, Oleg Gurevich wrote:
>> with GnuPG modern (2.1)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi @all,
with GnuPG modern (2.1) i can't delete anymore a secret key based on smartcard.
Is there an known workaround ?
by calling of: gpg --delete-secret-key ABCDEF123
...
Delete this key from the keyring? (y/N) y
This is a secret key! - really d
On 05/02/16 13:34, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Or did I miss something?
No, I don't think so. But I was under the impression that for a while now,
people were generally advised not to rely on the uniqueness of long key ID's.
And since this seems to be all you rely on with encrypt-to, key validity no
> If somebody can create a long-keyID-collision...
That seems to be a big 'if' right now. Short collisions are easy; long
ones are nontrivial. Or did I miss something?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/l
On 05/02/16 13:06, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> What's the justification?
If somebody can create a long-keyID-collision, and you download your own key by
that key ID and also import the other one, they might be able to be the one that
gets "encrypted-to", I think? Another way to get on your keyring
> Okay, I take that back, since section 8.7 clearly shows options you could put
> in
> gpg.conf :).
I confess to some slight misdirection here. Is that a valid gpg.conf
file? Sure. Will it get someone in trouble? Probably not. But is it
needed? Not really. :)
> Regarding that section, I t
On 05/02/16 11:55, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> In fact, "things to put in gpg.conf" would seem directly opposed to:
Okay, I take that back, since section 8.7 clearly shows options you could put in
gpg.conf :).
Regarding that section, I think
> # Always add these two certificates to my recipients list
On 03/02/16 21:12, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Beyond that, if there's anything
> you've always thought the FAQ should mention, now's a great time to
> suggest it. :)
I just notice section 8.19. It says to verify a download:
> gpg foo.zip.asc
As became clear in this[1] discussion, you should alwa
On 05/02/16 00:25, da...@gbenet.com wrote:
> A list of do's and don'ts
Don't use --expert
> - weird and impracticable keys
... Don't use --expert ;P
> common sense usage - common sense
Stick to the defaults
> things to put in your gpg.conf :)
keyserver ...
And that's it.
Really. Having a l
On 05/02/16 12:01, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> IMO, the GPH needs to be taken down.
I agree. I was composing a mail on the subject when I started... eh... composing
a different mail on a different subject ;).
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send
Looking over the GNU Privacy Handbook, it's clear it hasn't received any
maintenance in a decade or more. According to it, DSA is limited to
1024-bit keys, RSA gets almost no mention, SKS gets no mention, and
users are led to use the (closed-source, non-synchronizing) PGP
Corporation keyserver.
I
On 04/02/16 19:20, st...@mailbox.org wrote:
> Yes, that would be useful, and the wiki is the right place to publish it.
There's already a list of terms in the FAQ as well. "Signature" is not in it,
but I don't think that's a Frequently Asked Question. The other word Don Saklad
asked, "key", is the
> When the GnuPG default was not to show the key usage, I would have said:
> unnecessary detail. In my opinion, in a very broad sense, the FAQ should be
> aimed at people sticking to the defaults, not the people who tinker.
Let me put on the maintainer hat and speak ex cathedra a moment: The FAQ
i
On 04/02/16 09:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> What say y'all?
When the GnuPG default was not to show the key usage, I would have said:
unnecessary detail. In my opinion, in a very broad sense, the FAQ should be
aimed at people sticking to the defaults, not the people who tinker.
But now GnuPG show
On 05/02/16 03:56, Matthias Mansfeld wrote:
> On 5 Feb 2016 at 0:36, Sam Pablo Kuper wrote:
>> "Article 10 of the German constitution (communication privacy) is not
>> anymore with us."
>>
>> I would be grateful to know what happened (on 18 December 2015) to
>> prompt the posting of this statement
16 matches
Mail list logo
