Hi all,
I want to publish my GnuPG key in DNS, therefore I followed this Howto:
http://www.gushi.org/make-dns-cert/HOWTO.html
I can lookup the DNS entry and it looks OK to me:
$ dig +short bjoern._pka.schiessle.org. TXT
"v=pka1;fpr=244FCEB0CB099524B21FB8962378A753E2BF04F6;uri=https://www.schiess
On 20.12.2016, Christoph Moench-Tegeder wrote:
> Or is that just me and a local issue?
Most probably. For me, it works:
[htd@chiara Downloads]$ gpg --verify gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2.sig
gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2
gpg: Signature made Tue 20 Dec 2016 14:59:50 CET using RSA key ID 4F25E3B6
gpg: Good signat
On Tue, 20 Dec 2016 13:46, c...@burggraben.net said:
> I believe there's something wrong with the signature of the latest
> release.
Sorry, my fault. To create the signature I use
gpg -sbvu SIGNINGKEY gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2
Today I forgot the -b and thus a non-detached signature was created
(s
## Christoph Moench-Tegeder (c...@burggraben.net):
> This fails:
> gpg: Signature made Tue Dec 20 11:33:11 2016 CET
Since then, this has been fixed:
gpg: Signature made Tue Dec 20 14:59:50 2016 CET
gpg:using RSA key D8692123C4065DEA5E0F3AB5249B39D24F25E3B6
gpg: Good signature from
Hi,
Christoph Moench-Tegeder:
> Hi,
>
> I believe there's something wrong with the signature of the latest
> release.
>
> ## Werner Koch (w...@gnupg.org):
>
>> * If you already have a version of GnuPG installed, you can simply
>>verify the supplied signature. For example to verify the sig
On 12/20/2016 04:21 PM, Daniel Baur wrote:
> PS: What’s “public key algorithm 22”?
Elliptic Curves, specifically, EdDSA (in this case the warning is likely
related to a signature on the key used for verification that is using
Ed25519 which can't be verified by your client application)
--
---
Hello,
Am 20.12.2016 um 13:46 schrieb Christoph Moench-Tegeder:
> SHA1 (gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2) = d83ab893faab35f37ace772ca29b939e6a5aa6a7
> SHA1 (gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2.sig) = 34cea3e6d139cb340bf14f04ff217cb6960cf36d
>
> Or is that just me and a local issue?
it works for me (see below), but the sig-
Hi,
I believe there's something wrong with the signature of the latest
release.
## Werner Koch (w...@gnupg.org):
> * If you already have a version of GnuPG installed, you can simply
>verify the supplied signature. For example to verify the signature
>of the file gnupg-2.1.17.tar.bz2 yo
Hello!
Today marks the 19th anniversary of GnuPG and we are pleased to announce
the availability of a new release: GnuPG 2.1.17. See below for a list
of new features and bug fixes.
About GnuPG
=
The GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) is a complete and free implementation
of the OpenPGP stan
So, as some of you may remember, I've been working on something to help
users back up their user directories and migrate them to new machines.
We really have no good tools at present to do this, so I'm putting
together a small Qt application to make this easier.
https://github.com/rjhansen
Am 18.12.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Peter Lebbing:
> On 18/12/16 01:56, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> Nope. OpenPGP requires each RSA encryption add at least eight random
>> bytes to the data pre-encryption in order to make even identical
>> messages encrypt to different ciphertexts.
>
> However, this
Am 19.12.2016 um 02:20 schrieb Jan Kundrát:
> Hi,
> we're using gpgme's C++ bindings in Trojita [1], an IMAP e-mail client.
> After an update of gnupg from 2.1.15 to 2.1.16, gpg-agent appears to
> need more than 10s to initialize itself during startup -- or at least
> our very first decryptAndVer
12 matches
Mail list logo
