On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 13:53:47 +0200, Dirk Traulsen said:
> This sounds interesting. Please help me to clarify it a bit.
> After some tests and reading in my understanding it works like this:
[1...7]
Correct.
> When system2 would be cracked, an attacker would not have access to
> the secret part
Am 29 Mar 2005 um 11:15 hat Werner Koch geschrieben:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:27:27 -0500, John Harrold said:
>
> > given the time frame it probably happened when I was trying to unexpire the
> > key F65A739E. Can you elaborate on the reasons for using a separate key for
> > signing messages?
>
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 09:27:27 -0500, John Harrold said:
> given the time frame it probably happened when I was trying to unexpire the
> key F65A739E. Can you elaborate on the reasons for using a separate key for
> signing messages?
It is mostly useful if you keep your primary key offline
(cf. --ex
Sometime in March Charly Avital assaulted the keyboard and produced:
| John,
|
| here's the information I get on your key:
| pub 1024D/F65A739E created: 2002-10-02 expires: never usage: CS
| trust: unknown validity: unknown
| sub 1024R/C7658196 created: 200
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
John,
here's the information I get on your key:
pub 1024D/F65A739E created: 2002-10-02 expires: never usage: CS
trust: unknown validity: unknown
sub 1024R/C7658196 created: 2003-10-02 expires: never usage:
Hello,
I've been signing my emails with my gpg key (F65A739E) at least that is what
mutt says. However, when it's sent it appears to be signed with a sub key
(B23241CB). Can someone explain the purpose of subordinate keys and what I'm
doing wrong?
-
pub 1024D/F65A7
