Hello !
Is there a way to check the signature below with GnuPG?
AD> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
AD> --===1956155648==
AD> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
AD> protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1;
AD> boundary="ms010301
Hi all
I am writing a basic front end with limited gpg functionality.
My knowledge of gpg is not great and as a start I need some help with
the list format of --list-secret-keys and --list-public-keys.
I found that the --with-colons option returns the most details and
appears to be more machine r
Laurent Jumet wrote:
Hello !
Is there a way to check the signature below with GnuPG?
AD> This is a cryptographically signed message in MIME format.
AD> --===1956155648==
AD> Content-Type: multipart/signed;
AD> protocol="application/x-pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1;
AD> boundar
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alaric Dailey wrote:
> considering this
>
> https://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000551.html
>
> why would you bother with anything less than 2048 bit keys.
>
In there, it says, in part:
"If so, that means most intelligence agencies ca
Hello !
Alaric Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AD> No, this is an S/MIME signature, basically SSL technology for emails.
AD> as it appears much cleaner in modern email clients than PGP. But it
AD> appears MUCH cleaner than PGP, and and modern email clients validate
AD> the signatures automatic
Alaric Dailey wrote:
> No, this is an S/MIME signature, basically SSL technology for emails. as
> it appears much cleaner in modern email clients than PGP. But it
> appears MUCH cleaner than PGP, and and modern email clients validate the
> signatures automatically, and without additional software
Thanks for the responses, all. Good stuff.
Alaric wrote:
"considering this
https://www.financialcryptography.com/mt/archives/000551.html
why would you bother with anything less than 2048 bit keys."
I'm inclined to agree with you, from a security standpoint. I appreciate
you sending thi
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jason Barrett wrote:
> In a nutshell, I'm encrypting data entered via a website and storing it
> in a database for later retrieval and decryption by real-time user
> programs. I don't want to give up the value that the PGP brand adds to
> the product,
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 07:39:22PM +1200, Bernard wrote:
> I found that the --with-colons option returns the most details and
> appears to be more machine readable but I don't know what some fields
> mean.
>
> Where would I find documentation about this?
see doc/DETAILS file in source distribution
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 06:21:57PM -0400, Jason Barrett wrote:
> I am using GPG for encryption of sensitive information in a
> database. Some members of the development team are concerned about
> the space taken up by strings encrypted with 1024-bit keys
You may want to look into elliptic curves
Hi,
Kind of a newbie to gpg. I discovered it while using UBUNTU linux and
then went back to windows to see how to implement it there. I've got
the Mozilla Enigmail extension and I downloaded the 1.4.2 privacy guard
from GNU and installed it. It seems to be partially working in the it
will decod
On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 10:29:40AM -0400, Jason Barrett wrote:
> Yes, but it's almost impossible to answer this because it's not clear
> what you're doing. Are you storing the keys or the results? 1024 bit
> keys with what algorithm? The only key type that is locked to 1024
> bits is DS
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 4:01 pm, Stephen D. Scotti, M.D. wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Kind of a newbie to gpg. I discovered it while using UBUNTU linux
Did you generate your own key?
(with revocation certificate kept safe!)
http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_doc/startgnupg.html#generate
> will decode in
have been trying to decrypt a message using the session key,
but can't get it to work, (am using gnupg 1.4.2 at the command
line)
started by encrypting a file to a test key
(and also to my default key),
saving the file as c:\r\s.txt
and decrypting with the option of --show-session-key
here is
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-09-28 14:09 -0700]:
> C:\>gpg --override-session-key
> string1568A79A26ABCB75C294AA07AB73C53A7D168F2B898F93BE c:\r\s.txt
>
> gpg --override-session-key
> string2:1568A79A26ABCB75C294AA07AB73C53A7D168F2B898F93BE c:\r\s.txt
>
> gpg --override-session-key
> string`1568A7
Nicolas Rachinsky wrote
Thu Sep 29 00:22:49 CEST 2005
>> what is the correct syntax to get this to work?
>I would try it without 'string'.
Thanks!
that worked,
but needed the algorithm identifier before the string
(here is the form that worked:)
gpg --override-session-key
2:1568A79A26ABCB75C
now that have finally gotten
decryption with the session key to work ;-),
discovered something very curious ...
this was the 'good' command with the session key string:
gpg --override-session-key
2:1568A79A26ABCB75C294AA07AB73C53A7D168F2B898F93BE c:\r\s.txt
when retyping, i accidentally change
Jason Barrett wrote:
>I'm inclined to agree with you, from a security standpoint. I appreciate
>you sending this as it gives me some 'ammunition' against colleagues of
>mine who argue that the additional storage taken up by encrypted data
>trumps the security of a long cryptography key.
However,
Laurent Jumet wrote:
> Hello !
>
> Is there a way to check the signature below with GnuPG?
>
Possibly with GnuPG 1.9...
I did some fiddling with the raw message, if you remove the MIME
seperators inserted by mailman and replace them with the MIME lines in
the original message (the Content-
19 matches
Mail list logo
