Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

Hi On Wednesday 30 May 2012 at 10:30:56 PM, in , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world > would you ever need a 1 in 6 penetration rate? Whilst it would be *possible* for the various different departments and agencies mentioned by the OP to coordin

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Wednesday 30 of May 2012 21:14:42 MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in > > , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The > > problem is command and control. > > That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated. >

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

MFPA wrote: > Hi > > > On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in > , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > >> The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The >> problem is command and control. > > That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated. > > As a thought experiment, what ha

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 05/30/2012 04:14 PM, MFPA wrote: > That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated. And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world would you ever need a 1 in 6 penetration rate? I'm sorry, but this is rapidly descending down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theory -- where

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

Hi On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The > problem is command and control. That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated. As a thought experiment, what happens when all the "real" protesters

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Benjamin Donnachie wrote: > On 22 May 2012 09:58, wrote: >> >> I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years.  From >> what I am reading, links below,  I do not feel comfortable with the key >> length and algorithmic security offered by GPG'

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 22 May 2012 09:58, wrote: > I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From > what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key > length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults. > Use this patch to increase the maximum keysize in gpg

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 5/27/12 6:21 PM, MFPA wrote: > Planted informers numbering 1 in 6 of the "protesters" would still > be a statistically negligible percentage of the population at > large. That's actually not the problem. The problem is that if 1 in 6 people is

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi On Tuesday 22 May 2012 at 6:10:05 PM, in , Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Not even Nicolai Ceaucescu's Romania or Erich > Honecker's German Democratic Republic were able to get > one in six people to serve as informers. Planted informers numbering

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 19:46, Kevin Kammer wrote: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging: >> Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the >> participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entr

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 19:40, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote: >> Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the >> participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry? > > I think so, yes

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 22-05-2012 4:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com escribió: ... > There are also estimates made that in the US 1 in 6 "protestors" is > actually a government agent of one sort or another, dept of > defense, homeland security, fbi what have you. And that exl

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 9:41 PM, Faramir wrote: > [F]actoring your public key to obtain a working copy of your secret > key is certainly something that may be done before the end of time, > and won't require dyson spheres to power the machine. I'm not so optimistic. Factoring is a hard problem. We may never

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 22-05-2012 8:34, da...@gbenet.com escribió: ... > Some say that all the power of the universe - and all the time its > been in existence will not crack a 2048 bit key with a secure > passphrase. So by the time the universe is well and That is a

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 El 22-05-2012 12:33, Jerry escribió: ... > that sort of logic. What really amazed me though was that the OP > wants security and yet he uses GMail. "GMail" and "security" are > diametrically opposed concepts. Why? If I send an encrypted message,

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:40, r...@sixdemonbag.org said: > I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect > Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants, I would be happy to take a > stab at writing it. Please go ahead. Plain text optionally with org-mode formatting. Salam-Sh

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

Am Di 22.05.2012, 14:46:03 schrieb Kevin Kammer: > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging: > > Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by > > the participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry? > > Honestly now, do you think h

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:26 -0500 John Clizbe articulated: >All this and you're worried about overkill on the one place they WON'T >attack? No one attacks the crypto. They're are too many easier routes. >If you're /really/ worried about privacy and security, get your >priorities straightened out.

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM, wrote: > -- Forwarded message -- > From: "Robert J. Hansen" > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Cc: > Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:07 -0400 > Subject: Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be > s

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 3:10 PM, Avi wrote: > Didn't you already write a pretty good one one, Robert? > It's hubris for an author to refer to his own work. :) Also, that FAQ is in desperate need of a rewrite. Nothing in it is wrong, per se, but it needs a rewrite.

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: > I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From > what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key > length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults. > > I have not been able to figure out how to get keylen

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging: > Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the > participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry? Honestly now, do you think having a FAQ entry stops this topic resurrecting every few

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote: > Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the > participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry? I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants,

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 19:09, Peter Lebbing wrote: Oh all right :) Ha! Ha! David - no offence meant btw :) just so funny :) - -- “See the sanity of the man! No gods, no angels, no demons, no body. Nothing of the kind.Stern, sane,every brain-cell perfect a

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry? Hauke -- PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part. __

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 22/05/12 20:00, da...@gbenet.com wrote: > On 22/05/12 18:23, Hubert Kario wrote: [...snip...] David and Hubert, could you please trim the quotes in your replies? I'm typing this with one hand because my scroll finger is cramping... ;) j/k Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in comb

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 22/05/12 19:10, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Your claim may lead people to writing off your movement on the grounds > that one of two things are true. Either: > > - "They're a bunch of crazies who think that even the park > rangers are after them," > - Or, "holy Toledo, even

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 18:23, Hubert Kario wrote: > On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 13:34:20 da...@gbenet.com wrote: >> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 >> >> On 22/05/12 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: >>> I think it should be okay to dredge up this t

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: > I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From > what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key > length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults. [I think I write this same email on one list or another

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote: > Or bugs only affecting large keys are not found because so few people use it, > and it becomes an attack vector affecting only those using large keys. While this could happen, I'd guess it would be rather vice versa And eventually large

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 13:34:20 da...@gbenet.com wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 22/05/12 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: > > I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. > > From what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comforta

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 12:33:03 Jerry wrote: > What really amazed me though was that the OP wants > security and yet he uses GMail. "GMail" and "security" are > diametrically opposed concepts. Since when the security of encryption is dependant on the carrier/communication channel? Did I miss

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

I apologize in advance if any of this sounds snarky. It's not intended as such. Everything I've written here is sincere. > I am involved in a local Occupy (bet you thought occupy was kaput eh? well > as it were known it is but that's another story) and frankly we aren't > just up against one

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 12:28 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > under the control of botnet operators [1]. Whoops. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6298641.stm ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:23:36 -0400 Robert J. Hansen articulated: >On 5/22/12 8:12 AM, Jerry wrote: >> Seriously, have you forgotten to take your meds today? > >Let's not be mean. > >I will be the absolute first person demanding the right to criticize >ideas as harshly as I want. I'll happily call

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 11:50 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > There are a lot of ways to compromise a system, hidden backdoors in > other systems have already been revealed in the past. It's worth bringing out Vint Cerf's estimate that between a sixth and a quarter of all desktop PCs have been completely compromised

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com said: > on my computers than break the keys, however they can't plant spyware on > everone's computer. without people noticing They do slurp up and Are you sure? Did you looked at the GnuPG code so closely to come up with such a strong statement

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 22/05/12 15:39, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote: > Nevertheless I guess it could even help to find awkward bugs or other > issues that may not appear with the "moderate" key sizes. Or bugs only affecting large keys are not found because so few people use it, and it becomes an attack vector affec

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

Hi. This pops up over and over again... >From a technical point of view that seems to be not only a intended limitation,... at least it's not enough to change the max size in the code,... there seem to be several buffers one would need to enlarge in order to make bigger keys. Personally I'd pref

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 4:58 AM, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: > I am involved in a local Occupy (bet you thought occupy was kaput eh? > well as it were known it is but that's another story) and frankly we > aren't just up against one intelligence agency, but all intel > agencies put together. You might want to

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 13:12, Jerry wrote: > On Tue, 22 May 2012 04:58:48 -0400 tim.kac...@gmail.com articulated: > > {snip} > > > > Interesting! I once worked for a secret government agency. We had a working > theory that > anyone using encryption for other

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On 5/22/12 8:12 AM, Jerry wrote: > Seriously, have you forgotten to take your meds today? Let's not be mean. I will be the absolute first person demanding the right to criticize ideas as harshly as I want. I'll happily call an idea stupid, ill-informed, wrong, or anything else. I do this with a

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

On Tue, 22 May 2012 04:58:48 -0400 tim.kac...@gmail.com articulated: {snip} Interesting! I once worked for a secret government agency. We had a working theory that anyone using encryption for other than normal business operations was an obvious enemy of the state. I guess we must have missed yo

Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22/05/12 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote: > I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From > what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key > length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's d

Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults. I have not been able to figure out how to get keylengths greater than 3072 for DSA/elgmal