Re: Stupid Symantec

2018-03-16 Thread Phil Susi
On 3/16/2018 9:16 AM, Steven Maddox wrote: > I get the impression they want the decryption happening on the end users > machines. > > Presumably so that if any users got the idea to just 'upload' a file > online - it'd be the encrypted version of that file.  Course someone can > just get around th

Re: Stupid Symantec

2018-03-16 Thread Phil Susi
On 3/16/2018 9:15 AM, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > How does that work when the decryption key is on the client? I don't think it is on the client. The private key is stored on the server and is decrypted when you log in. At least I think that's how it works. I've never actually tried using EFS on

Re: Stupid Symantec

2018-03-16 Thread Phil Susi
On 3/16/2018 4:11 AM, Steven Maddox wrote: > Yeah I just use LUKS on my PC to protect local files, but this is (as > above) for files on SMB/Windows shares... sorry for not mentioning that > sooner. I believe you can enable EFS on the windows server and it will handle decrypting the file before se

Re: Stupid Symantec

2018-03-15 Thread Phil Susi
On 3/15/2018 11:26 AM, Steven Maddox wrote: > The desktop portion of that software has an OS/kernel level driver that > watches if you're trying to open a PGP encrypted file... then decrypts > it on the fly and finally passes it to the application that'd normally > open it. > Anyway I can ei

Re: DOS attack?

2018-01-17 Thread Phil Susi
On 1/15/2018 3:00 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > It's from 2003. It doesn't need modernization. > > Keyservers are designed the way they are for a reason. If keyservers > *never ever discard or modify existing data*, then you can easily > identify any code which theoretically might be able to dis

Re: "right to be forgotten" nonsense

2018-01-16 Thread Phil Susi
On 1/15/2018 10:24 PM, listo factor via Gnupg-users wrote: > If there is merit to the principle that an Internet server operator > can not keep publicly serving private data over the objections of > the owner (the same as today, after many battles, he can no longer There isn't merit. It became pu

Re: Why does import refuse to merge a new subkey?

2017-11-02 Thread Phil Susi
On 11/2/2017 3:04 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 02/11/17 16:58, Phil Susi wrote: >> Why is this? > > What version of GnuPG is this? It's a well-known limitation of GnuPG 1.4 > and 2.0, but my 2.1.18 allows me to add secret subkeys through --import. Looks like I've sti

Why does import refuse to merge a new subkey?

2017-11-02 Thread Phil Susi
Whenever my subkeys expire and I have to generate a new one, I try to import the keys on my less secure machines and gpg stupidly refuses to update the already existing key with the new subkey. I have to delete the key, then import to get the new subkey into the keyring. Why is this? __