On 9/22/2011 4:51 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> I know only very limited stuff about this, but I thought that this
> was mainly to check that copies of windows were 'non-pirated', and
> has come under some criticism that they might be able to exclude some
> from running linux OS's ...
That's
On 9/22/2011 3:59 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Can these rootkits work when there is no mbr access?
Yes. In fact, EFI/UEFI is more or less a replacement for MBRs.
EFI/UEFI is almost the first thing through the CPU's brain upon booting.
There's probably some on-chip microcode that executes fi
ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> So, if , for example, in a case where I don't have my laptop with me, (but I
> do have a usb with gpg and keyrings, and a miniDVD with ubuntu),
>
> then, assuming there is no keylogger on the borrowed laptop, what
> is the problem with booting from the ubuntu miniDVD,
John Clizbe John at enigmail.net wrote on
Thu Sep 22 18:38:06 CEST 2011 :
> It can be done, but it's nontrivial. I think it's more like
Sisyphean IMHO :-(.
OK, thought so, ;-)
>You cannot secure "everything" necessary to securely run gpg (or
any >other program) from a USB stick.
>Please don't
On 9/22/2011 12:38 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
> probably be good to include msvcrt.dll as MinGW targets it.
Also so that you're not depending on the host machine's MSVCRT.DLL.
That .DLL is often targeted by malware: it makes such a perfect place to
drop hook functions.
(Putting that .DLL on the stick
ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
>
> Thanks,
> I knew about the MSYS method, but not about the others,
> but my point was about running gnupg from a flash drive.
>
> I was under the impression that there is no portable way to do that
> on a flashdrive that doesn't have these systems installed on the
>Message: 9
>Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2011 22:44:26 -0500
>From: John Clizbe
>To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>Subject: Re: windows binary for gnupg 1.4.11 // compilation
> instructions posted
>Message-ID: <4e7aaf1a.1040...@enigmail.net>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charse
On 9/21/2011 11:44 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
> ONLY? How much effort did you expend looking?
In addition to John's offerings, don't forget http://gnuwin32.sf.net.
Most of the GNU tools exist in native Win32 builds. Some of them are a
bit old (e.g., their flex is 2.5.4a, current is 2.5.34, their gawk
ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> BTW,
> There is a unique advantage to running gnupg from cygwin on
> windows, as it's the only way to make use of unix-like commands,
> (cat, grep, printf, etc.) and pipe them to and from gnupg.
ONLY? How much effort did you expend looking?
The MinGW compiler folks p
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 22:48, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> If I determine that my work PC and my home PC are both trusted systems,
> and I have a single USB stick containing my GnuPG installation and
> keyrings that I want to use on both, then I don't see the risk so long
> as that USB stick is never
>Message: 8
>Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 13:28:34 -0400
>From: Avi
>To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>What about us windows users who do not have GPG installed on our
>desktops, but our secure USB sticks. 1.4.11 works very nicely as
>a stand-alone (or in my case, with GPGShell).
>However, I am not a real p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Fair enough, I was not precise, my apologies.
I run GnuPG off a Truecrypt encrypted partition on a USB stick,
so I can access it places where I do not wish to load my
keyring, and cannot install a card reader. I find that version
1.4.11 with GPGShel
On 9/20/2011 3:23 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> There is no such thing as a secure USB stick to run programs from.
If I determine that my work PC and my home PC are both trusted systems,
and I have a single USB stick containing my GnuPG installation and
keyrings that I want to use on both, then I don't
On Friday 16 September 2011, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 9/16/2011 2:49 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> > Because then who is to say that it wasn't tampered with?
>
> Who's to say the one on ftp.gnupg.org wasn't tampered with? It would
> be fairly easy to make a version of GnuPG that always rep
On Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:28, avi.w...@gmail.com said:
> What about us windows users who do not have GPG installed on our
> desktops, but our secure USB sticks. 1.4.11 works very nicely as
> a stand-alone (or in my case, with GPGShell). I'm afraid that
> 2.+ would not work properly when installed to a
B019 F80E
29F9
From: Werner Koch
> To: Johan Wevers
> Date: Sat, 17 Sep 2011 12:06:49 +0200
> Subject: Re: windows binary for gnupg 1.4.11 // compilation instructions
> posted
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:42, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
>
> If they don't find this, I doubt
On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 23:28, jpcli...@tx.rr.com said:
> Many tools such as autoconf have to be installed from the Interix community
> site.
To build gnupg you don't need autoconf. A bare bones development system
is always sufficient. autoconf is only used to create the configure
script which is
Werner Koch wrote:
> Hi,
>
> there is a thing for Windows called System Services for Unix (SFU). It
> is a modern POSIX implementation on top of the NT kernel but very
> different to the old we-need-to-be-compliant-to-gov-ITBs Posix
> subsystem. Did anyone ever tried to build a GnuPG on it?
>
>
Hi,
there is a thing for Windows called System Services for Unix (SFU). It
is a modern POSIX implementation on top of the NT kernel but very
different to the old we-need-to-be-compliant-to-gov-ITBs Posix
subsystem. Did anyone ever tried to build a GnuPG on it?
AFAICS this would use MSC but on a
Johan Wevers wrote:
> On 16-09-2011 21:30, Simone Cianfriglia wrote:
>
>> To achieve your desired result, it's required to run the exactly same
>> compiler, including the version, with the same options targeting the
>> correct architecture. Also a minor tweak in architecture settings
>> could chan
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 21:42, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
> OK, then what about a direct link to the version of the installer still
> present on ftp.gnupg.org?
It was removed on purpose. We - and this includes Enigmail developers -
want users to use the modern version. Those how have a valid rea
On 9/16/2011 6:15 PM, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Which makes me wonder how hard it would be to build GnuPG 1.4.11 with
> MS Visual Studio.
With MS Visual Studio, or with the command-line cl.exe compiler? The
last I heard from the Autotools fellows (Ralf Wildenhues, et. al.)
several months ago, they we
On 16-09-2011 21:30, Simone Cianfriglia wrote:
> To achieve your desired result, it's required to run the exactly same
> compiler, including the version, with the same options targeting the
> correct architecture. Also a minor tweak in architecture settings
> could change the result, see for examp
Thanks,
Simone, Johan and Robert,
well, there goes that idea ...
(but it's nice to know, that it's *possible* if there ever were
some extreme need for it) ;-)
Johan,
as per your excellent suggestion, the link to the ftp is hosted:
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mbgpg2go/download.html
(I'm rea
On 9/16/2011 2:49 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Because then who is to say that it wasn't tampered with?
Who's to say the one on ftp.gnupg.org wasn't tampered with? It would be
fairly easy to make a version of GnuPG that always reported itself as
having a good signature. (See, e.g., Ken Thomp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hello veidaal and gnupg-users list.
> My understanding, (which may be outdated),
> is that there are too many variations in individual user systems,
> so that the compiled files would never have 'exactly' the same
> hash independent of where they a
On 16-09-2011 20:49, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
>> Why not also host a copy of the existing binary?
>
> Because then who is to say that it wasn't tampered with?
OK, then what about a direct link to the version of the installer still
present on ftp.gnupg.org?
> Although,
> [and am over my head
Johan Wevers johanw at vulcan.xs4all.nl
Fri Sep 16 20:28:52 CEST 2011 wrote:
>Why not also host a copy of the existing binary?
Because then who is to say that it wasn't tampered with?
The whole point is to start with gnupg.org signed and verified
material, and then let the user take it from th
On 16-09-2011 17:17, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Posted the 'How To' on Maxine Brandt's restored site, here:
> http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mbgpg2go/cyowb.html
Why not also host a copy of the existing binary?
--
Met vriendelijke groet,
Johan Wevers
__
>Compiling your own windows binary on windows
>(for people who never used a compiler):
Reviewed the instructions, and tested them on windows 64 bit
systems, and no modifications are necessary.
Posted the 'How To' on Maxine Brandt's restored site, here:
http://www.angelfire.com/mb2/mbgpg2go/cyo
30 matches
Mail list logo
