I'm writing an email client with support for PGP encrypted and signed
messages using GPG. I've noticed that GPG seems to do the right thing in
may situations regardless of the flags used which makes it hard to know
if I'm passing it the correct flags. For example, if I pipe a
clearsigned message in
Thanks Brian. I think I tried this but I couldn’t figure out how to completely
hide the passphrase so no one could get to it. Maybe I was using it
incorrectly. Since this is an unattended operation that runs day and night, I
wanted to secure the passphrase so gpg could get to it without human
i
Hi,
Sorry. The information is basically in the linked issue.
I had the problem moths ago and their was no solution. Now I retried and I
still have the same problem. Back then it was probably 'gnupg-2.1.3.3' now
it is the newest version from Arch Linux Repo '2.1.11-1'.
I want to set up a Yubikey
Thanks Steve for your feedback! I spent a lot of time jotting down all the
different ways to do this, including encrypting the passphrase file, adding
some kind of trust to the key if possible or putting the passphrase inline in
the code and then locking down the code itself. As you point out, a
On 02/06/2016 12:08 PM, Robert J. Hansen - r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
Since I seem to have become the doyen of documentation, I figure I
should ask: what markup language and/or output formats should we be
pursuing for future documentation work?
Whatever you decide to use, I suggest to consider
On 19/02/16 19:47, Andrea Dari wrote:
> This time gpg didn't run that command by itself.
Huh. That's odd. I've never observed GnuPG neglecting to update it
automatically when something might have changed.
But I'm glad you figured it out, it was pretty weird.
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Gua
Nop I didn't, now it works!
This time gpg didn't run that command by itself.
Thanks Ingo
Andrea
2016-02-19 19:20 GMT+01:00 Ingo Klöcker :
> On Friday 19 February 2016 15:12:34 Andrea Dari wrote:
> > 1) This is the general situation:
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/NXuJj2h5
> >
> > User one is the
On Friday 19 February 2016 15:12:34 Andrea Dari wrote:
> 1) This is the general situation:
>
> http://pastebin.com/NXuJj2h5
>
> User one is the user that i fully trust and has a revocation dated on
> 18 February 2016
>
> 2) Here you can see User one pbkey details:
>
> http://pastebin.com/g2tQKz
Hi,
if you have a problem with GnuPG, please always specify the version you
are using and best also the OS. For cars it is also useful to tell us
the reader you are using.
The first few lines of
gpg --version
are the best way to show us the version (you may need to type "gpg2").
Shalom-Sa
I use the default Debian gnupg packet config, I have only Andrea Dari's
private key.
I tested it also with gnupg v2.x but it still have the same problem.
2016-02-19 15:27 GMT+01:00 Peter Lebbing :
> On 19/02/16 15:12, Andrea Dari wrote:
> > 1) This is the general situation:
>
> I don't see why th
On 19/02/16 15:12, Andrea Dari wrote:
> 1) This is the general situation:
I don't see why this unexpectedly keeps user three fully valid... it
looks like you're right and three should be invalid. Do you have any
funny stuff in gpg.conf? For which of these keys do you have the private
key installed
1) This is the general situation:
http://pastebin.com/NXuJj2h5
User one is the user that i fully trust and has a revocation dated on 18
February 2016
2) Here you can see User one pbkey details:
http://pastebin.com/g2tQKzPN
3) Here you can see that user three is treated with validity = full eve
I can't reproduce this. A revocation correctly invalidates any
certifications *both* before or after the moment of revocation. After
all, the time can be faked.[1]
I tested with no "revocation reason" specified, by the way. But I don't
think GnuPG uses the revocation reason for anything, although
Yes, both GMT.
2016-02-19 12:33 GMT+01:00 Andrew Gallagher :
> On 19/02/16 10:25, Andrea Dari wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my public keyring I have a public key signed in date 19 February 2016
> > by a user (pbkey) that I trust fully, but the same pbkey of the user
> > that I trust is revoked in dat
Yes, both GMT.
Andrea
2016-02-19 12:33 GMT+01:00 Andrew Gallagher :
> On 19/02/16 10:25, Andrea Dari wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > In my public keyring I have a public key signed in date 19 February 2016
> > by a user (pbkey) that I trust fully, but the same pbkey of the user
> > that I trust is revoke
On 19/02/16 10:25, Andrea Dari wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In my public keyring I have a public key signed in date 19 February 2016
> by a user (pbkey) that I trust fully, but the same pbkey of the user
> that I trust is revoked in date 18 February 2016.
Are both dates in GMT?
A
signature.asc
Descriptio
Hi,
In my public keyring I have a public key signed in date 19 February 2016 by
a user (pbkey) that I trust fully, but the same pbkey of the user that I
trust is revoked in date 18 February 2016.
So the question is, how can be possible that a pbkey signed after a key
revocation, which could be ea
Hallo all,
I have the same issue as in this bug [1]. When I '--edit-key' the 'toggle'
command will not show the private keys. I don't understand the comments in
the bugticket and the question asked by 'einalex' seems relevant.
"perhaps I missed something but...with the command removed how are we
18 matches
Mail list logo
