-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 16.06.2007 um 17:05 schrieb Brian Smith:
> IF you have a life-long digital secret that you want to protect from
> people with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and you
> insist on
> using RSA public key encryption to protect it during t
Crest wrote:
>
> Isn't it more usefull to switch to ECC instead of using that large keys?
Does gnupg support elliptic curve crypto? ;-)
--
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Remco Post
SARA - Reken- en Netwerkdiensten http://www.sara.nl
High Performance Computing Tel. +31 20 592
Remco Post wrote:
> Does gnupg support elliptic curve crypto? ;-)
Not yet...
Ben
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Remco Post wrote:
> Does gnupg support elliptic curve crypto? ;-)
I found this link on the Wikipedia page:
http://www.calcurco.cat/eccGnuPG/index.en.html
- --
Windows NT 5.1.2600.2180 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 | Enigmail 0.95.1 | GPG
1.4.7
Key ID: 0
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Remco Post wrote:
> Does gnupg support elliptic curve crypto? ;-)
==
if you're paranoid about RSA, then there's no reason to go to ECC since
the math behind it is still young and uncertain. while a 1024 bit
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 11:14:35AM +0200, Crest wrote:
> Am 16.06.2007 um 17:05 schrieb Brian Smith:
>
> > IF you have a life-long digital secret that you want to protect from
> > people with hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and you
> > insist on
> > using RSA public key encryption to p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Atom Smasher wrote:
> gpg does support RSA-2048/SHA-256 (or even RSA-4096/SHA-512) which
> is what i've been using for a while now. i'll sign this email with
> RSA-2048/SHA-256 (my default on this key) just to show what it
> looks like. it's a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Robert Hübener wrote:
> Andrew Berg wrote:
>> Try signing/encrypting files that are tens, hundreds, or
>> thousands of megabytes in size. Sure, your average machine can
>> sign/encrypt messages that don't even fill a cluster without
>> breaking a
Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
> As previous mac-gpg2 releases, this release is intended for power users
> only.
Universal binary, MacOSX Tiger 10.4.9 and above.
Ben
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 01:20:17PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote:
> Robert Hübener wrote:
> > Andrew Berg wrote:
> >> Try signing/encrypting files that are tens, hundreds, or
> >> thousands of megabytes in size. Sure, your average machine can
> >> sign/encrypt messages that don't even fill a cluster wit
Charly Avital wrote:
> I guess I'll have to wait for 1.4.
I've just prepared a new version of gpg v2.0.4 for the Mac which uses
libgcrypt v.1.3.0
It can be found at
http://www.py-soft.co.uk/~benjamin/download/mac-gpg/mac-gnupg-2.0.4-2.zip
with detached signature at
http://www.py-soft.co.uk/~benja
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Sven Radde wrote:
> The actual "bulk" data processing is done by a symmetric algorithm
> / hash function. You only encrypt the key to the symmetric
> algorithm / sign the hash value. Both are typically 256bit or
> smaller.
>
> In fact, the larger
RSA keysize will influence how long it takes you to encrypt or sign a
message. But how long the RSA signing/encryption step takes is going
to be the same no matter what the message length. That's because you
are only ever signing a hash of the message or encrypting the
symmetric session key used to
Andrew Berg wrote:
> Robert Hübener wrote:
>> The work for the RSA-part of the algorithm is always the same: It
>> only has to process either the hash of the message/file or the key
>> for the symmetric cipher.
> I don't completely understand. Does this mean that
> encryption/signature time is onl
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
My gnupg file that I get with edit-keys myuid
contains, among other things:
sub 2048g/48FF0850 created: 2007-02-24 expires: 2008-02-24
sub 4096g/124E0663 created: 2007-06-17 expires: 2009-06-16
How do I know which key is used when sending e-mail?
gnupg as distributed may not be generating larger than 4096 bit keys
but it is easy enough to (or was in the past) to modify the source code
in I think one place and change it to whatever you want.
In my case I was able to successfully generate a 8192-bit RSA key
and tested it with encryption, dec
On Sun, 2007-06-17 at 12:58 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
> >> >>> Lot's of other stuff, not top-posted here.
> GnuPG supports RSA keys much larger than 4096 bits. It does not,
> however, currently allow generation of such keys, so the keys must
> come from elsewhere.
>
> > Isn't it more usefull to s
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Try signing/encrypting files that are tens, hundreds, or thousands of
> megabytes in size. Sure, your average machine can sign/encrypt
> messages that don't even fill a cluster without breaking a sweat, but
> if the sensitive data is large, RSA-
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 12:41:16PM -0500, Newton Hammet wrote:
> gnupg as distributed may not be generating larger than 4096 bit keys
> but it is easy enough to (or was in the past) to modify the source code
> in I think one place and change it to whatever you want.
>
> In my case I was able to su
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> My gnupg file that I get with edit-keys myuid
> contains, among other things:
>
> sub 2048g/48FF0850 created: 2007-02-24 expires: 2008-02-24
> sub 4096g/124E0663 created: 2007-06-17 expires: 2009-06-16
>
> How do I know which
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:24:22PM -0500, Newton Hammet wrote:
> I did this before in gnupg-1.2.1 (Check the mailing list archives)
> but it was a different change... I think, to a header file. (I don't
> have or can no longer find the detritus from that excursion) I was
> much more energetic then
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote:
> This year is slightly different in that I'm waiting for someone to
> discover they can also raise the key size limit for DSA. That, at
> least, is marginally less strange as I put in code to make the hash
> size automatically ri
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
>> My gnupg file that I get with edit-keys myuid
>> contains, among other things:
>>
>> sub 2048g/48FF0850 created: 2007-02-24 expires: 2008-02-24
>> sub 4096g/1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
John W. Moore III wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
My gnupg file that I get with edit-keys myuid
contains, among other things:
sub 2048g/48FF0850 created: 2007-02-24
New keyanalyze results are available at:
http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ka/2007-06-10/
Signatures are now being checked using keyanalyze+sigcheck:
http://dtype.org/~aaronl/
Earlier reports are also available, for comparison:
http://keyserver.kjsl.com/~jharris/ka/
Even earlier month
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 06:31:15PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>
> > This year is slightly different in that I'm waiting for someone to
> > discover they can also raise the key size limit for DSA. That, at
> > least, is marginally less strange as I put in code to make the
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> John W. Moore III wrote:
>> David Shaw wrote:
On Sun, Jun 17, 2007 at 02:49:21PM -0400, Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> My gnupg file that I get with edit-keys myuid
> contains, among other things:
>
> sub 2048g/48FF0850 created: 2007-02-24 expires: 2008-0
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Andrew Berg wrote:
> Try signing/encrypting files that are tens, hundreds, or thousands of
> megabytes in size. Sure, your average machine can sign/encrypt messages
> that don't even fill a cluster without breaking a sweat, but if the
> sensitive data is large, RSA-4096 isn
On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, David Shaw wrote:
> The defaults in GnuPG are chosen to be basically sane for the
> overwhelming majority of users. People who are recompiling GnuPG need
> to understand the implications of the change they are making and be
> aware they're throwing away that safety net.
==
29 matches
Mail list logo
