markus reichelt wrote:
>> What makes you think the NSA doesn't want to decrypt US government
>> traffic?
> I don't care what the NSA wants.
I meant to say that, as others also pointed out, that this can mean that
the NSA will promote encryption that they think they alone can crack.
--
ir. J.C.
Hi,
I expect I'm being an idiot, and will be mortified by the answer, but
having searched the web and assorted archives, I can't turn up an answer
so I thought I'd brave the list ...
I've installed gpg on a couple of boxes (Windows Server 2003/IIS and a
Suse/Apache machine).
Used from the CLI it
* Johan Wevers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> markus reichelt wrote:
>
> >> What makes you think the NSA doesn't want to decrypt US government
> >> traffic?
>
> > I don't care what the NSA wants.
>
> I meant to say that, as others also pointed out, that this can mean
> that the NSA will promote e
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:08:16PM -, Pete Croft wrote:
>
> I suspect it's a permissions problem: the source file for encryption
> exists, the key is correct, and the exact same command issued via CLI
> produces the output file as desired, so in the absence of other evidence
> I'm guessing th
On Wednesday, November 9, 2005, 2:56:41 PM, markus wrote:
> Some of you got the hint, some didn't: As I said early in this thread
> that my opinion of the NSA being able to crack PKC quite easily is
> based on my personal belief, *just like one might believe in god or
> not*. I do not feel inclined
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 03:29:38PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 12:08:16PM -, Pete Croft wrote:
> >
> > I suspect it's a permissions problem: the source file for encryption
> > exists, the key is correct, and the exact same command issued via CLI
> > produces the
Mark Kirchner wrote:
/You/ told the list that you "think that the guys [...] at NSA can
break public key crypto quite easily".
Now, that is quite a daring statement, and naturally that provoked
curious questions. And now your reply to that is just "it's my
personal belief"? Um, sorry, but if that
David Shaw wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 07:17:01PM +0300, lusfert wrote:
>
>>Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ok,.. I know that you can set at least the following flags to specify
>>>the purpose of a key:
>>>A - authorsation
>>>C - certification
>>>E - encryption
>>>S - signation
>>>
>
Hi there,
do you recommend any USB token for use with GnuPG? I currently
consider to buy an OpenPGP smartcard but the thought to have a tiny
USB token instead of a big smartcard reader is appealing to me,
especially because they might share the same protocol. But I think
the question is m
On Nov 9, 2005, at 22:49, Alaric Dailey wrote:
USB tokens are a smartcard and reader in one, nothing more.
Yeah, I got that fact. So to clarify: A USB token with a supported
smartcard in it.
Kind regards,
Philipp Kern
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
> I have frequently heard of file permissions on the key-ring
> as a source of trouble in the setting you describe. PHP is
> probably running a nobody or Apache or something equally
> restrictive, with good reason. For other good reasons the
> key-rings usually have read and write permissions
On 11/9/05, Philipp Kern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I got that fact. So to clarify: A USB token with a supported
> smartcard in it.
I don't know if they are supported by GnuPG, but we have several of
the Aladdin eToken devices bundled by PGP Corp. with PGP Desktop v9.
They work fairly well
12 matches
Mail list logo
