On 09/05/2012 12:39 AM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> Could you recommend a safe text editor, in the sense it does protect
> the edited contents in memory, but, most important, on the disk (temp
> files and such). Having functions to interact with gnupg would be even
> better.
>
> The point is to ed
On 04/15/2011 02:01 PM, Thomas Harning Jr. wrote:
> I've generated and published a 8192-bit non-expiring RSA 'master' key
> for signing other keys as well as 2048-bit RSA keys for signing and
> encryption (expiring in a few years). The master key is protected by
>
> I have not had it signed by ot
On 4/14/11 5:02 PM, Felipe Alvarez wrote:
> now, whenever I try to encrypt to user "alice" It fails, saying
> encryption failed: public key not found
>
> The public key is there! But it has a different fingerprint
> (17D11744). GPG is looking for Alice's Old hash fingerprint
> (DE0155B3). How
On 01/15/2011 11:34 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> It beats me why a program like gpg should detect the keyboard type and
> change its language like this, language setting should be a volontary
> change by the user always! Just think how good it would be for an
> English speaking user to try and use a PC
On 01/12/2011 03:42 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> Well, I created a batch file with the command:
>
> gpg -r --encrypt
>
> When I execute this batch file it actually does what I need provided
> that the file is not open in MS Word. If it is then there is a very
> strange error message about an illega
On 01/12/2011 02:58 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:12:48 +0100, Bo Berglund
> wrote:
>
> Seems like noone can answer this question
Cheer up. :-) Sometimes it can take a few days before someone can get
you the answer that you need.
> What I want to do is to encrypt a specif
On 01/11/2011 02:12 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> What I did next was to locate the gpg.conf file in AppData in my
> profile (I am running Windows7 X64).
> Here I found a text part where it looked like one could add a group
> specification.
>
> So I went ahead and added this line:
> group developers =
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:01:17 +, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> That thread is clearly right about the bulk of the paper, which is
> clearly an attack on the user of the crypto. Signing ambiguous
> messages is not a good idea! But what about the suggestion they made
> in section 1.2 about not signing
On 01/03/2011 02:25 AM, Michel Messerschmidt wrote:
> Have you tried it with gnupg 2.0.x ?
> IIRC you need at least 2.0.12 for the SPR-532 pinpad and gnupg-agent
> should be running.
> If not, please post more details about your environment and how you
> execute gnupg. The pinpad works for me, so
On 01/02/2011 05:32 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I am using an OpenPGP v2 card with an SCM SPR-532 smartcard reader, and
>> I can't get GPG to take a PIN from the pinpad instead of the keyboard.
>> When I run "gpg --card-edit" followed by any command that requires a PIN
>> or Admin PIN, I get a pa
Hi,
I am using an OpenPGP v2 card with an SCM SPR-532 smartcard reader, and
I can't get GPG to take a PIN from the pinpad instead of the keyboard.
When I run "gpg --card-edit" followed by any command that requires a PIN
or Admin PIN, I get a password dialog box from pinentry, but I can only
enter
Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:44:56 +, Lee Elcocks wrote:
> I have finaly managed to import PKSC12 files into GPGSM. Is their a
> way of importing OpenPGP keys into GPGSM?
No. GPGSM is for CMS and S/MIME; GnuPG is for OpenPGP and PGP/MIME.
> The client insists that we use RSA keys using openSSL and bu
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:07:13 +0100, Mike wrote:
> I use IMAP for my mailbox and I am accessing this from Win/Outlook and
> Ubuntu/Evolution.
>
> When I get an email and I access it first with Outlook, then I can not
> verify the signature anymore in Ubuntu as the whole email got detached
> into a sep
On 11/10/2010 07:23 AM, Visual GPG WoT Project wrote:
> I've created two key pairs for two different email accounts (lets say
> email1@ and email2@)
> and signed each one with each other and set the owner trust to
> "ultimate"...
>
> When I send an encripted email from email1@ to email2@
> my Enig
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:40:11 -0700, Dan Cowsill wrote:
> It seems the algorithms are mapped to algo ID's. I can confirm that the
> algorithm is different than than the one used on my real secret key, but
> I had not been able to find any resources that map the algo ID's to
> their respective names
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:45:59 +0200, Remco Rijnders wrote:
> I've looked at this before and haven't been able to tell... is there any
> way to subscribe to this group without needing to create a yahoo ID and
> email address?
No. Yahoo! requires you to log in with a Yahoo! ID, or if you don't
have
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:57:08 -0700, Dan Cowsill wrote:
> After some googling, I decided this would be the best place to start.
> What I'm after is a mailing list or user group that exchanges encrypted
> communications with each other. Or, if no such mailing list exists, I
> wonder if I might be a
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:56:08 +0530 (IST), Alex Smily wrote:
> please dont mind if this forum in not the correct one to ask...i have
> installed gnupg on windows... gpg ,gpg2 ,gpgsm are working fine.
> is it possible to generate x.509 certificates using gnupg? if s
> please help me.
This is the righ
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:49:48 -0400, Ted Rolle Jr. wrote:
> I tried -ace and it aways asked for a userid. -c and -ac worked just
> fine. Apparently when -e is specified that triggers the request for a
> recipient.
Hi Ted. "-c" or "--symmetric" encrypts with a symmetric key that is
derived from a
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:55:17 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> Now, the problem: I search keys by an email address, and gpg shows
> me the different matches found, and ask me to enter the number of the
> match I want to import, or O for other, or F to finish. But if I enter O
> or F, it just repeats th
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 04:21:07 -0700 (PDT), BernePGP wrote:
>> Im really new to this and I have about 80% understood, I am at the stage
>> where I have sent my key in a word file to my recipient that is sorted. I
>> then tell the reciepient to download and load the gnupgp programe and to
>> read the
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:55:41 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> You would have to ask Paul. I suspect, though, that with only a
> low-thirtysomething number of nodes and a total number of messages in
> the neighborhood of six hundred, that there's not much confidence to be
> had in any trend.
Exact
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:30:22 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> The interesting thing, is a lot of times the NETMK messages are caused
> by less active members who (somehow) broken their configurations.
Actually, the most amusing and bizarre mistake is that people sometimes
encrypt to only *their* key. Th
Hi MFPA,
Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:49:40 +0100, MFPA wrote:
>> 681 Messages sent by members of the list
>> 628 Encrypted messages
>
> I'm surprised the difference is so large - it doesn't "feel like" that
> large a proportion is unencrypted. But that number not encrypted looks
> correct if it includes a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:30:22 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> El 07-08-2010 15:59, Paul Richard Ramer escribió:
> ...
>> So for me that makes approximately 1 in 29 encrypted messages was not
>> encrypted to my key, 1 in 19 of all messages was a NETMK message, and 1
>> in 12 of all
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:59:45 -0700, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> 681 Messages sent by members of the list
> 628 Encrypted messages
> 36 NETMK messages
> 37-41 Keys
> 37-40 Members
> 32 Members sent encrypted messages
> 13 Members were responsible for not encrypting to someo
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:57:57 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> It is also worth noting that PGPNET has some very big problems with key
> management. PGPNET users are apparently comfortable wrestling with
> these problems (more power to them for that), but we shouldn't pretend
> the problems don't e
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:12:00 +0530, Varaprasad Kota wrote:
> After trying with different options, I was able to compile it with the
> command "./configure AR=gar". I have also GCC compiler installed
> readily. I tried compiling it and it gave me a er
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:57:15 +0530, Varaprasad Kota wrote:
> I have downloaded "gnupg-2.0.15.tar.bz2" and done the below steps to install
> them on SunOS.
>
> Step1: unzipped it
> Step2: Moved into the parent directory(gnupg/gnupg-2.0.15.tar.bz2) an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:10:12 -0400, Michael Feinberg wrote:
> I have been using PGP on Windows for some time, and am now trying to
> move to Fedora. That implies a move to GPG, which is fine, but I want
> to have access to my PGP files without conve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:25:09 -0500, Seidl, Scott wrote:
> I am sending data to a vendor for processing and they are at times having
issues decrypting our files. We are ASCII armoring the file before we send
it, and they are receiving a error of:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:20:06 -0400, Brian Mearns wrote:
> Sorry for such a simple question, but I can't find a simple answer. My
> signing and encryption subkeys have expired, so do I just create new
> subkeys, and upload to the SKS servers? Do I have
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:12:00 -0400, Kannan, Aarthi [Tech] wrote:
> Here is the command I use:
> gpg --home /home/gpgfiles --keyring /home/gpgfiles/pubring.gpg
> --list-secret-keys
>
> From: Kannan, Aarthi [Tech]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT), James Board wrote:
>> Have you tried decrypting the file with either PGP or
>> GnuPG? Also,
>> where in the file is the corruption?
>
> The file is corrupted (a 4096-byte page full of zereos), at seemingly
r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:40:08 -0300 Faramir wrote:
> Another thing to consider, is SHA is not as safe as it used to be, and
> it it becomes easily crackeable, signatures issued using SHA can become
> unsafe. So maybe you'd like to use SHA-256 instea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:05:21 + MFPA wrote:
>> I can't speak for other people, but I can for me. Take
>> > a look at the UIDs on my key, which is
>> > 0xC7C66ADF3DB6D884. And also, take a look at my master
>> > key 0x2188A92DF05045C2 that I sign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello James,
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:02:41 -0700 (PDT) James Board wrote:
> I have a fairly large file (about 10 mbytes) that was corrupted on
disk. About 5-10 pages of the file (4096-byte blocks) were lost and
set to zero. The file is a PGP encry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello MFPA,
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:49:32 + MFPA wrote:
>> I think that I disclosed less than you may have gotten
>> the impression that I did, since those addresses were
>> never private information.
>
> I don't understand the comment that they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:31:41 + MFPA wrote:
>> I am also assuming that the user has intelligence and judgment.
>
> A useful combination, sadly not common enough (-;
Better than useful, it is essential. :-)
>> I mean that he must be able to real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:05:21 + MFPA wrote:
>> And by the way, I apply this rule to me.
>
> Which rule? You've already stated that you don't believe the holder
> should upload the key if the originator doesn't want, so presumably
> you mean that
Hello MFPA,
I couldn't respond to your post for a while. So here it is.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:38:18 + MFPA wrote:
>> I never asserted that you said the key's originator owned the
>> information stored in the key. I was quoting the context of what your
>> reply about the originator having "s
MFPA wrote:
>> In each of these cases, John Doe made the mistake of thinking that
>> he could keep his personal information in his key, and that he could
>> keep his key off the keyservers. If John were to make the wisest
>> decision about keeping his personal informaton secret, wouldn't he
>> choo
Hello MFPA,
I will summarize the "rights" and restrictions that I believe you say
that an OpenPGP user has with another's public key. I will call this
the rules of "Key Rights Management" or KRM for short.
Rights of the Key Originator
* Can restrict the uploading of
MFPA wrote:
> On Saturday 6 March 2010 at 8:55:48 AM, you wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
(b) the person owns the information has the right to
control how it is disseminated, and
>
> This was someone's re-interpretation of my point. Spot the extra ">"?
Hel
Hello MFPA,
During this whole debate, you have assumed one thing in your argument
that I don't believe anyone has pointed out as being flawed. You have
assumed that the person (I will call him John Doe) would have decided
to create a UID that contained the personal information that he wants
to ke
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
> > (b) the person owns the information has the right to
> > control how it is disseminated, and
>
> The data subject does have various rights concerning the personal
> information that is about him.
Hello MFPA,
How far do the "rights" of the key hol
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 16:06 -0500, reynt0 wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> . . .
> > Speculation isn't any more progress than an idea is action. Speculation
> > buttressed with facts leads, in time, to progress. But speculation,
> . . .
>
I think that MFPA has succinctly summed up his point of view in these
two quotes.
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:33 +, MFPA wrote:
> > What you're saying here is, "even if the advice were sound for one
> > million users, and destructive to the privacy of just one, I still
> > would not change becaus
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:33 +, MFPA wrote:
> > Speculation is great, but speculation isn't fact -- and we need to
> > change the way we do things based on facts, not on speculations. We
> > can agree on facts, but our speculations will likely not overlap very much
> > at all.
>
> I'm sure an
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 19:21 +, MFPA wrote:
> There is a widespread perception (rightly or wrongly) that exposing
> your email address publicly on the internet will lead to that email
> address being spammed into oblivion. The new openPGP user is exhorted
> to create a key pair using their name
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 02:11 -0200, Juan Manuel Fernandez Arauz wrote:
> Hello, i have the this doubt:
>
> I have tried this:
> gpg --local-user UID1 --edit-key UID3
> > trust
> 5
>
> and later:
> gpg --local-user UID2 --edit-key UID3
> > trust
> 1
>
> But if i later execute this again:
> gpg --l
My error. I didn't CC the following message to the mailing list.
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 02:38 -0800, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> I won't add to the other good replies, except for this. Concerning
> the
> revocation certificate that you would be behooved to create, you
>
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 15:23 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/25/10 9:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
> > Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> > up on the servers.
>
> What you're advocating here is "DRM on the honor system." Don't copy
> the key, don't distribute the key
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 15:23 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/25/10 9:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
> > Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> > up on the servers.
>
> What you're advocating here is "DRM on the honor system." Don't copy
> the key, don't distribute the key
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 14:24 +, MFPA wrote:
> My point was that not everybody wishes/chooses to send their keys to
> the keyservers.
>
> Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> up on the servers.
In my case, the reason that I uploaded my keys to public keyservers
55 matches
Mail list logo
