Hi
The warning:
gpg: WARNING: server 'gpg-agent' is older than us
comes from gpg v 2.2.17 installed using the speedo build.
$ gpg-agent --version
gpg-agent: relocation error: gpg-agent: symbol
assuan_sock_set_system_hooks, version LIBASSUAN_1.0 not defined in
file libassuan.so.0 with
Perfectly simple explanation of what I was doing wrong. Works fine now. Much
appreciated.
-Original Message-
From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of Branko
Majic
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 4:43 PM
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: gpg: WARNING
On 06/04/2013 03:22 PM, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com wrote:
> I am running on Red Hat Linux 6.4.6
What release is that?
I have support from Red Hat that is up to date as of today, and it
claims to be:
$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 6.4 (Santiago)
Nothing about a t
On Tue, 4 Jun 2013 19:22:04 +
wrote:
> I have researched this error message and have found the suggestions do not
> work. Does anyone know how to have this warning message stop?
>
> I am getting the message: gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
> `/home/wsc_gpg/.g
I have researched this error message and have found the suggestions do not
work. Does anyone know how to have this warning message stop?
I am getting the message: gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on homedir
`/home/wsc_gpg/.gnupg'
User wsc_gpg owns the gpg installation.
The process is ru
.
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/gpg-WARNING-message-was-not-integrity-protected-MDC-tp29533p29544.html
Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users
to work but we get a warning
> message while validating the file (gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity
> protected). The question is how to avoid the warning message.
>
> After reading the forum I believe this has to do with mdc, that mdc is not
> forced in this case and that is causi
Hi
This has been discussed before and I have an question referring to this.
Short summary:
A customer encrypts data with our public key, we receive the file and we
attempt to decrypt it. The decrypt step seems to work but we get a warning
message while validating the file (gpg: WARNING: message
Hi Roberto!
On 12/20/2012 02:32 PM, Roberto wrote:
I made and script in PHP to encrypt information with GPG. It works fine
until I move it from a Plesk server to a cPanel server. I adjusted
paths, permissions and users but I get this errors:
is your web server user running as the same user acc
Hi Roberto!
On 12/20/2012 02:32 PM, Roberto wrote:
> I made and script in PHP to encrypt information with GPG. It works fine
> until I move it from a Plesk server to a cPanel server. I adjusted
> paths, permissions and users but I get this errors:
is your web server user running as the same user
reate temporary file
`/home/USER/.gnupg/.#lk0x9b1b580.HOST.1614': Permission denied
gpg: keyblock resource `/home/USER/.gnupg/secring.gpg': General error
gpg: failed to create temporary file
`/home/USER/.gnupg/.#lk0x9b1b580.HOST.1614': Permission denied
gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownersh
nasee...@gmail.com wrote:
> Does anyone know when can this warning come?
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
> Or Is there any way to track warnings?
Whatever software, its always first worth knowing how to search
sources for clues. Non programmers too can find clues i
littleBrain wrote the following on 6/25/09 6:29 AM:
> Does anyone know when can this warning come?
>
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
<http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2008-May/033326.html>
Charly
Does anyone know when can this warning come?
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
Or Is there any way to track warnings?
What I would want is to separate such warnings from the main decrypted
message.
Please help me out.!!
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com
On May 8, 2009, at 3:16 PM, Patrick Mabie wrote:
Hello
I was just wondering , can I fix this ?
RPM version 4.4.2.3
gnupg-1.4.5-14.x86_64
CentOS 5.3 x86_64
kernel : 2.6.18-128.1.10.el5
rpmbuild -bb Documents/Rpm/Spec/q7z-64.spec --sign
Generating signature: 1005
gpg: WARNING: standard
Hello
I was just wondering , can I fix this ?
RPM version 4.4.2.3
gnupg-1.4.5-14.x86_64
CentOS 5.3 x86_64
kernel : 2.6.18-128.1.10.el5
rpmbuild -bb Documents/Rpm/Spec/q7z-64.spec --sign
Generating signature: 1005
gpg: WARNING: standard input reopened
gpg: WARNING: standard input reopened
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David SMITH wrote:
>> 1. I want to avoid this warning. How do I do that ?
>> 2. Is this avoidable if I go with a trusted signature?
>> 3. What does this warning exactly mean ?
>
> It means that you haven't signed the key that you are using to check
Vinay M wrote:
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
> owner.
> 1. I want to avoid this warning. How do I do that ?
Sign the key the file is signed by.
> 2. Is this avoidable
On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 05:24:12PM +0530, Vinay M wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I run command "gpg --verify " I get the below mentioned
> warning.
>
> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
> gpg: There is no indication that the s
Hi,
When I run command "gpg --verify " I get the below mentioned
warning.
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the
owner.
1. I want to avoid this warning. How do I do that ?
2. Is this avoi
On Thu, 1 May 2008 19:21, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> How can I use MDC for Public Key Encryption ? Does the key have an MDC
> flag that needs to be set during key generation ?
Right. Lacking such a flag you may use --force-mdc:
@item --force-mdc
Force the use of encryption with a modificati
On May 1, 2008, at 1:21 PM, Meenal Pant wrote:
Hello all,
When I decrypt a message I sometimes see this warning:
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
I read through the Open PGP RFC and understood that using MDC ensures
message integrity for encrypted messages. If I use MDC to
Hello all,
When I decrypt a message I sometimes see this warning:
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
I read through the Open PGP RFC and understood that using MDC ensures
message integrity for encrypted messages. If I use MDC to encrypt
messages this warning will go away.
How can
I get This Error when encrypting a file, everything works fine the file is
encrypted, and I can unencrypt it.
You did not specify a user ID. (you may use "-r")
>
> Current recipients:
>
> Enter the user ID. End with an empty line:
> No such user ID.
>
Just Wondering what this means
_
Hi,
after upgrading to gnupg 1.4.4 my rpm signing spits out these
warnings. Is this OK, and if so, how can I turn this warning off?
Thanks.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
pgp58IlveiHK3.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-us
On Mon, Apr 10, 2006 at 11:47:21AM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> On 10-Apr-06, at 9:52 AM, David Shaw wrote:
> >Backwards compatibility. CAST5 has been around it seems forever.
> >AES256 hasn't.
>
> Ah, I see.
>
> >It's fine to use AES256, just don't do it with "cipher-algo AES256".
> >Use "perso
On 10-Apr-06, at 9:52 AM, David Shaw wrote:
Backwards compatibility. CAST5 has been around it seems forever.
AES256 hasn't.
Ah, I see.
It's fine to use AES256, just don't do it with "cipher-algo AES256".
Use "personal-cipher-prefs" instead, and list the ciphers you prefer
thanks for the ti
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 11:11:48PM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> On 9-Apr-06, at 7:28 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> >MDC can be forced on via --force-mdc. As Werner said, the preference
>
> Excellent. So, the follow-up question is, should one use this option
> for files symmetrically encrypted for lon
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006 20:12:33 -0400, David Shaw said:
> AES256 is vastly stronger than most people need in practice. Heck,
> CAST5 is vastly stronger than most people need in practice. Even so,
For some application there is one point which makes AES stronger that
CAST5 or similar: AES works on 12
On 9-Apr-06, at 7:28 PM, David Shaw wrote:
MDC can be forced on via --force-mdc. As Werner said, the preference
Excellent. So, the follow-up question is, should one use this option
for files symmetrically encrypted for long-term storage (like if
burned to a CD)?
system will automaticall
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 07:57:00PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > David Shaw wrote:
> >> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> >> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> >> Yes, but that's that not to say tha
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 06:44:18PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> > cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> > Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES25
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
>> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
>> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: A
David Shaw wrote:
> That's sort of an apples and oranges question. CAST5 is a 128-bit
> cipher. AES256 is a 256-bit cipher. Is CAST5 weaker than AES256?
> Yes, but that's that not to say that CAST5 is broken somehow: AES256
> is just twice as large.
Forgive me for being pedantic, but I'd like t
On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 03:27:17PM -0300, Trevor Smith wrote:
> Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
>
> gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
>
> that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
> texts. Werner Ko
Some time ago there were questions about the warning message:
gpg: WARNING: message was not integrity protected
that gpg outputs when decrypting *some* symmetrically encrypted
texts. Werner Koch wrote in
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2004-October/023500.html
that:
That
On Mon, Mar 21, 2005 at 07:41:39PM -0500, Jason Wallwork wrote:
> Received the warning message:
> gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on configuration file
> "/home/jason/.gnupg/gpg.conf"
>
> after running gpg --version as root. I don't get the warning if I run the
Received the warning message:
gpg: WARNING: unsafe ownership on configuration file
"/home/jason/.gnupg/gpg.conf"
after running gpg --version as root. I don't get the warning if I run the same
command as a regular user.
Here's the permissions on the file:
[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 08:59:34PM -0800, Melissa Reese wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 8:49:01 PM PST, you wrote:
>
> > It means that you have "--trust-model always" set. GnuPG is warning
> > you that it isn't checking trust.
>
> Thanks! I'll remove that option from my c
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Hi David,
On Wednesday, March 16, 2005, at 8:49:01 PM PST, you wrote:
> It means that you have "--trust-model always" set. GnuPG is warning
> you that it isn't checking trust.
Thanks! I'll remove that option from my configuration file. For some
: armor header: Hash: RIPEMD160
> gpg: original file name=''
> gpg: Signature made 03/16/05 18:58:05 using RSA key ID 973073CF
> gpg: Good signature from "Melissa Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
> gpg: WARNING: Using untrusted key!
> gpg: textmode signature, dig
file name=''
gpg: Signature made 03/16/05 18:58:05 using RSA key ID 973073CF
gpg: Good signature from "Melissa Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>"
gpg: WARNING: Using untrusted key!
gpg: textmode signature, digest algorithm RIPEMD160
I know that my key is given "Ultimate Trus
42 matches
Mail list logo
