There is, perhaps, a wider perspective on the problem discussed
in this thread.
GPG is a reasonable tool for the protection and verification of
content exchanged between two parties. Once a message reaches
the recipient's operational environment, it should be decrypted,
and its further protection
On 5/29/20 4:51 PM, Stefan Claas - s...@300baud.de wrote:
how does Alice protects her Live-CD and USB stick, when she leaves home
and Mallory gains access to them, so that for example the Live-CD can
be exchanged?
Live-CD is a "public resource", available from multiple locations on
the 'net and
The setup described in this "how-to" was originally put together
and used (and possibly still is) quite a while ago, using
Disastry's PGP 2.6.3ia-multi06 as the crypto back end.
This guide has been composed from bits and pieces of the original
user documentation, scissoring out the content that
On 5/23/20 4:30 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I mean, this seems like 95% of what you want. You just want the
reference to an email address in step 4 removed?
If you can get the community to agree, I'm all in favor.
- All gpg operations (key generation, encryption, decryption) are
carried out
Robert,
Hi and thanks for the reply. Salsa is cooking. And since you
are so kind:
It would help a whole lot if GPG included some authoritative
documentation on how to use the program in the following scenario:
- The trust in the correspondent's public key is established only
by comparing the ke
On 5/21/20 10:52 AM, Ingo Klöcker - kloec...@kde.org wrote:
On Donnerstag, 21. Mai 2020 00:14:40 CEST LisToFacTor via Gnupg-users wrote:
I suppose you also entered an empty string for "Email address":
`` > Real name:
Email address: f...@example.com
You selected this USE
On 5/20/20 6:52 PM, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
On 20 May 2020, at 18:51, LisToFacTor via Gnupg-users
wrote:
Demanding a piece of information from someone who would prefer not
to give it is equally user-hostile, especially so if he who demands
it does so only because it is required by some
On 5/20/20 7:27 AM, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
Such a limitation would be user-hostile, as there are people in some cultures
who have only one name, the Indonesian dictator Suharto being one famous
example.
Demanding a piece of information from someone who would prefer not
to give it is equally
On 5/11/20 10:11 PM, Robert J. Hansen - r...@sixdemonbag.org wrote:
This arrived in my inbox: I'm presenting it here without comment.
You've advised people to use a HORRIBLE practice of using dictionary
words solely for their password. I tested this theory myself back in the
day, so I can 100%
If everyone involved will have both the public and secret
daily keys, I don't see the need for using public cryptography.
Just generate all those daily keys¹ as a random 128 bit
passphrase each and use a symmetric cipher such as AES.²
It is actually an interesting contemporary phenomenon: ther
10 matches
Mail list logo
