Gnupg-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: A safe text editor (No such Client)
>
About the safe text editor, the safest one is the one which is running
on a operating system without a connection to any network.
just use something like this
https://w
> Is there any truth in the claim from some employers that having a
> mobile phone switched on within about 3 metres of a computer monitor
> allows the potential for remote compromise of the data on the screen
> via the mobile phone network?
I wouldnt believe it's common or easily available. Lots
On 9/12/12 4:47 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Is there any truth in the claim from some employers that having a
> mobile phone switched on within about 3 metres of a computer monitor
> allows the potential for remote compromise of the data on the screen
> via the mobile phone network?
Beats me. The real ques
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 10 September 2012 at 9:46:13 PM, in
, Landon Hurley wrote:
> If van eck phreaking is a potential surveillance
> vector, I think that we could categorically conclude
> that the person is screwed.
Is there any truth in the claim fro
On 11.09.2012, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The only sure-fire remedy against a
> temp file that got deleted is a full wipe of the partition the file was on, as
> far as I know.
You can mount /tmp and the various other tmpfiles to memory. That's
what I do (not for security reasons, but to have the tmp
On 11/09/12 16:58, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote:
> Instead, I'm using full disk encryption.
I also have an OS on full disk encryption (not my regular workstation OS). I
still see a use for a "safe" text editor, for example as a lightweight
alternative to FDE.
Peter.
--
I use the
On Di, Sep 11 2012, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> I think people want it because editing a text file *now* might
> expose the data *far into the future*. Temp files and swap pages
> have the potential to live on your hard disk for a very long time.
> [...]
> The only sure-fire remedy against a temp file
On 11/09/12 16:57, Heinz Diehl wrote:
> You can mount /tmp and the various other tmpfiles to memory. That's
> what I do (not for security reasons, but to have the tmp stuff deleted
> on reboot).
So you store the unencrypted file to /tmp and edit it there with whatever
program is needed? Say you're
On 09/09/12 23:29, Marco Steinacher wrote:
> Isnt't that the problem with almost any data? At some point you have to
> decrypt it to edit or view it with some application.
> [...]
> I think demanding all allplications to be aware of this and to handle it
> securely is quite a strong requirement
On 10/09/12 19:45, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Either people are on their own computers, which they trust, and
> which they can cleanse the memory and reboot, or they are on
> untrusted computers, where memory is the least of their problems.
I think people want it because editing a text file *n
On 09/10/2012 04:55 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Second, no, of course the distro-on-a-stick doesn't defend against Van
Eck phreaking.
Distro-on-a-stick doesn't defend against anything if you don't trust the
hardware, which you shouldn't if you don't trust the software. It's
entirely feasible
On 10/09/12 22:46, Landon Hurley wrote:
> Maybe some sort of hood made out of wire mesh to stop radiation leakage.
Ah, you mean a tinfoil hat? ;P
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is availa
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012, at 19:45, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Either people are on their own computers, which they trust, and
> which they can cleanse the memory and reboot, or they are on
> untrusted computers, where memory is the least of their problems.
>
> In any event, it is simply possible
On 9/10/2012 3:37 PM, MFPA wrote:
> What about TEMPEST as a potential eavesdropping vector?
First, it's "Van Eck phreaking." TEMPEST refers to a NATO standard for
*defending* against Van Eck phreaking.
Second, no, of course the distro-on-a-stick doesn't defend against Van
Eck phreaking. The onl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 09/10/2012 03:37 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 10 September 2012 at 6:45:29 PM, in
> , ved...@nym.hush.com
> wrote:
>
>
>> In any event, it is simply possible to avoid the entire
>> issue, by booting from static media (i.e. ubuntu)
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 10 September 2012 at 6:45:29 PM, in
, ved...@nym.hush.com
wrote:
> In any event, it is simply possible to avoid the entire
> issue, by booting from static media (i.e. ubuntu)
> writing to usb only, using any ubuntu editor, and then
Either people are on their own computers, which they trust, and
which they can cleanse the memory and reboot, or they are on
untrusted computers, where memory is the least of their problems.
In any event, it is simply possible to avoid the entire issue, by
booting from static media (i.e. ubuntu
fav text editor can juggle with private keys too. Than I have
> to ask some more questions and end up in the same point: they never
> understood what safe meant. So they never bothered to take the word into
> account. So for them it translates what text editor can do scripting
> too.
I
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 23:02, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 22:04, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> > It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> > nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
>
> Are you talking about how an encryption/signing tool is
Am 09.09.2012 20:39, schrieb Peter Lebbing:
> On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
>> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
>
> Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up
> with
> security in mind. If you take a full-fledged editor tha
On 09/09/12 22:04, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
Are you talking about how an encryption/signing tool is not a text editor??
What's with the sudden demeaning criticism
On 09/09/2012 10:04 PM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
>
> It's sad to see that Pretty Good Privacy is just about pretty good and
> nothing more. People don't seem to care beyond playing 007.
Finally, *someone* gets it. You always have to push the bar of sec and
crypto. Not wallow in routines and compl
On Sun, Sep 9, 2012, at 21:16, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
> > I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
> > didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
> > model, and probably there is no real point for you to spe
Hi!
On 09/09/2012 09:16 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
>> I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
>> didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
>> model, and probably there is no real point for you to speculat
On 09/09/12 21:06, Milo wrote:
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say/prove by polemics with things I
> didn't wrote. I won't speculate about your faith in editors, your threat
> model, and probably there is no real point for you to speculate about my
> (possible) family and my hard drive data a
Peter.
On 09/09/2012 08:39 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
>> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
>
> Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up
> with
> security in mind. If you take a full-fledged e
On 09/09/12 13:12, Milo wrote:
> Also there are vim scrips allowing some level of integration with gnupg.
Personally, I'd have more faith in a text editor that was written ground-up with
security in mind. If you take a full-fledged editor that was never intended to
hide the contents, and then bolt
Hi.
On 09/09/2012 11:16 AM, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> 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)
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.
>
&g
On Mi, Sep 05 2012, notizblock wrote:
> Am 2012-09-05 09:39, schrieb antispa...@sent.at:
>
>> 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 function
>> You could use vim with the gnupg.vim [1] plugin.
>
> Is it me or does that plugin default to using temporary files, pretty much
> defeating the whole purpose? Makes me wonder how well thought out this script
> is.
Yes it does (default). But you can configure it to use pipes instead:
g:GPGUseP
On 05/09/12 14:56, notizblock wrote:
> You could use vim with the gnupg.vim [1] plugin.
Is it me or does that plugin default to using temporary files, pretty much
defeating the whole purpose? Makes me wonder how well thought out this script
is.
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in
Am 2012-09-05 09:39, schrieb antispa...@sent.at:
Hello,
> 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.
>
&g
On 09/05/2012 03:39 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 best
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 edit a text and have it all encrypted on disk. I'd lik
35 matches
Mail list logo
