On Dec 5, 2007 1:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > a simpler, much faster, solution is to just use truecrypt
> > and then encrypt the keyfile with gnupg
>
> Unless you have done performance metrics with 1TB datasets, I seriously
> doubt the accuracy o
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> a simpler, much faster, solution is to just use truecrypt
> and then encrypt the keyfile with gnupg
Unless you have done performance metrics with 1TB datasets, I seriously
doubt the accuracy of this statement. Backing up 1TB is definitely a
torture test; small effects c
Ryan Malayter malayter at gmail.com wrote on
Tue Dec 4 17:03:43 CET 2007 :
> Our solution for backup encyption has been to use 7zip
...
>We do over 1 TB of backups per night
a simpler, much faster, solution is to just use truecrypt
and then encrypt the keyfile with gnupg
quote from the truecryp
On Nov 26, 2007 3:58 AM, Thomas Pries <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I realized, that I have lost my data :-(.
Our solution for backup encyption has been to use 7zip, since it
encrypts faster and supports segmentation, per-file checksuimming, and
other useful backup-oriented features.
What our scr
Hello,
Am Montag, 26. November 2007 10:19 schrieb Werner Koch:
> I guess that the file got corrupted on the medium. Hard disks are not
> 100% error free and with such a large file there is a chance that you
> experienced a bit flip.
No doubt, my fault, I should have a second (and third) copy of
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 10:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Werner, do you use GetFileSize or GetFileSizeEx? There are also
Since 1.4.3 we are using GetFileSizeEx if available on the platform. We
use it todecide whether a file is close to 4GB - if this is the case we
use OpenPGP's partial encoding form
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 00:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> I also recall that Werner stated the AES code in GnuPG wouldn't be
> optimized for a number of reasons, becasue of security (timing
> attacks), and also a desire to keep GnuPG architecture-agnostinc. The
Nope. It is just that nobody has found
Hi again,
I found the old thread: Trouble decrypting AES256 symmetric encrypted file:
You (Ryan) wrote:
This is surpisingly *not* a Windows issue. We have 200+ GB database
files on many of our database servers. All using NTFS.
I think the issue is that GnuPG is using a 32-bit DWORD file pointer
> Snoken wrote:
> > is the old problem with files greater than 4 GB solved? How large
> > files can gpg handle on WindowsXP? On other systems?
My recollection is that the file size issue was fixed years ago, as it
was a limitation in the MinGW layer or something that was remedied. I
never followed
Snoken wrote:
> is the old problem with files greater than 4 GB solved? How large
> files can gpg handle on WindowsXP? On other systems?
Depends a lot on your filesystem. FAT32 doesn't like files greater than
4GB, no matter what program makes them. NTFS does not have this limitation.
I have see
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
is the old problem with files greater than 4 GB solved? How large
files can gpg handle on WindowsXP? On other systems?
Snoken
At 00:39 2007-11-18, you wrote:
- --snip--
>I found a thread discussing a similar decryption problem in the Gnupg-users
On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 00:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> gpg: original file name='abc.tgz'
> gpg: packet(14) with unknown version 26
> gpg: WARNING: encrypted message has been manipulated!
> gpg: packet(6) with unknown version 139
>
> I repeated the decryption with different gpg versions (1.4.2, 2.0.4
Hallo,
Am Sonntag, 18. November 2007 00:39 schrieb Thomas Pries:
> this decryption faild with errormessage:
> ...
> gpg: WARNING: encrypted message has been manipulated!
> gpg: packet(6) with unknown version 139
addition: up to this point I can restore about 30% of the archive content.
Greetin
13 matches
Mail list logo
