On 2009-08-13, David SMITH wrote:
> So the people who come on gnupg-users asking for help because they've
> forgotten their passphrase or accidentally deleted their ~/.gnupg
> directory don't exist?
>
> I guess that's a new way of replying to them: "You don't exist".
>
> Not forgetting the possibi
On 2008-11-03, David Shaw wrote:
> Rather offtopic, but I read an interesting paper on seals a while back
> (I'm afraid I don't recall where offhand). Seals never really assured
> confidentiality. A person who wanted to open a letter would just make
> a mold of the seal, melt it free, read the l
[Note: I posted this to the Ubuntu-users list recently too. Apologies
to those who have already seen it.]
I have a strange problem with seahorse not working on only one of two
Ubuntu computers. The gpg-agent works in the curses-like way when I
call gpg in xterm, but seahorse doesn't. (Because
I have a strange problem with seahorse not working on only one of two
Ubuntu computers. The gpg-agent works in the curses-like way when I
call gpg in xterm, but seahorse doesn't. (Because seahorse isn't
working but Thunderbird enigmail detects the agent running, Enigmail
doesn't work either.) Th
I work with ssh-agent using ssh-add from the command line: "ssh-add
key0 key1 key2" to activate keys (sometimes with -t to set a time
limit), and "ssh-add -d key1" or "ssh-add -D" to deactivate them.
Is there a similar way to work with gpg-agent?
___
G
On 2007-04-28, James Moe wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Is is possible to view the contents of a public key file without
> importing first?
If you want to see the key ID, UIDs and so on that you would be
getting if you imported it, try this:
$ gpg --import -n -vv FILE
-n is also known as --dry-run.
HT
On 2007-02-19, John Clizbe wrote:
> The passphrase is only one protection on your keypair and it's
> pretty much the protection of last resort - given an easily
> guessable/brute-forced passphrase, it's "Game-Over." if an attacker
> gets access to the keyring files. Another protection is to
> phys
Consultation on the Investigation of Protected Electronic Information
under RIPA
The Home Office has issued a consultation on a revised draft statutory
code of practice on investigation of protected electronic data data,
which relates to the exercise and performance of the powers and duties
that
On 2006-06-05, Zach Himsel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> I am using Thunderbird with the Enigmail extension. It gets annoying
> to me to have to enter in my password every time I want to send a
> signed (every email) or encrypted (only some) email. Sure, it saves it
> for 5 minutes idle
On 2006-05-16, Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I'm not sure what you mean. Thunderbird (for example) lets the user
>> designate unsigned keys for recipients in the address book and encrypt
>> to them.
On 2006-05-16, Werner Koch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Adam Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Is there any way to override this restriction?
>
> It is not a restriction but a requirement.
I'm not sure what you mean. Thunderbird (for example) lets t
On 2006-05-15, Ingo Klöcker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (Two apologies: this is slightly off-topic, and I've also posted the
>> same question to the debian-user list.)
>
> You should have tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] :-)
I'll try that next, thanks!
>> I'm running the Debian kmail 3.3.2-3 package a
(Two apologies: this is slightly off-topic, and I've also posted the
same question to the debian-user list.)
I'm running the Debian kmail 3.3.2-3 package and gpg 1.4.3 compiled
from the source.
As far as I can tell, it flatly refuses to let me encrypt a message to
any key that doesn't have a sign
On 2006-04-22, razzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> OK, I use GPG to encrypt a Word file. Everything works out ok, but the result
> is always two files: the Word file in plain text and an encrypted version of
> the same Word file. Why is GPG creating two files? Should it not just
> encrypt my Wor
On 2006-04-10, David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No. There is no compile-time question whether enarmor exists or not.
> It just exists. If you want a list of all keywords that GnuPG
> understands, use "gpg --dump-options".
Isn't that an undocumented option too? I've just tried "gpg --hel
On 2006-04-10, Alphax <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:16:14PM -0400, John A. Martin wrote:
"ds" == David Shaw
"Re: auto-key-locate pka (gpg version 1.4.3)"
Sat, 8 Apr 2006 20:11:48 -0400
>>> ds> This means that the build of GnuPG you
What's the best way to back up my GnuPG keyrings -- just a tar.gz of the
~/.gnupg directory?
Or is there any advantage to producing additional files with the
"--export" and "--export-secret-keys" commands?
(I know that the backups then need to be stored securely.)
_
Should I be confident about using gpg's return code 0 in a script (run
automatically by at or cron) to make encrypted backups? Example:
cd /backup/directory
tar cf user1.tar /home/user1
gpg -er 0x01234567 user1.tar && rm user1.tar
Thanks,
Adam
___
Gn
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 09:11:51 -0400
> From: David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > I recently created a new subkey for a keypair that I use on two
> > machines, but I cannot get the subkey onto the second machine. I
> > have tried gpg --export, --export-secret and --export-secret-subkey
> > on t
I recently created a new subkey for a keypair that I use on two
machines, but I cannot get the subkey onto the second machine. I have
tried gpg --export, --export-secret and --export-secret-subkey on the
first computer but gpg --import refuses to add the subkey on the second
one.
How can I do
> It applies to the master key only. You do not need to generate a new
> revocation certificate. Revoking the master key takes out all UIDs
> and subkeys in one step.
That's what I suspected.
Thanks,
Adam
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnu
When I created my keypair I dutifully created and safely stored a
revocation certificate for it.
I recently added a new subkey and revoked the old subkey (as discussed
on this list). I've also added and revoked a few UIDs since the key
was created.
Is there any reason to generate a new revocatio
Werner Koch wrote:
> That keyserver as well as all other servers running the old HKS
> software are broken. YOu should move away from that keyserver and use
> an SKS one (e.g. random.sks.keyserver.penguin.de) or at least those at
> subkeys.pgp.net.
Thanks very much for the information. I was n
Following a recent discussion about subkeys, I decided to add a new
subkey and revoke the old one on each of my keys (one used at work,
one at home). Then I tried to update each machine to have the new
public subkeys (using pgp.mit.edu):
work $ gpg --send-key WORKKEYID
home $ gpg --recv-key WORKK
24 matches
Mail list logo
