What do I have to do to keep my current gpg authentication if I reformat the
hard drive it's installed on and reinstall gpg with a new OS? I'm not sure
where the authentication info is stored or how (or whether) it can be moved.
--Dan
___
Gnupg-user
Dan Bensen wrote:
> What do I have to do to keep my current gpg authentication if I reformat
> the hard drive it's installed on and reinstall gpg with a new OS? I'm
> not sure where the authentication info is stored or how (or whether) it
> can be moved.
Open a command prompt and issue the comma
Dan Bensen wrote:
> What do I have to do to keep my current gpg authentication if I reformat
> the hard drive it's installed on and reinstall gpg with a new OS?
From: John Clizbe
> Open a command prompt and issue the command:
> gpg --version
I think it's too late for that :/
I did copy my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Dan Bensen escribió:
> *From:* John Clizbe
>> Open a command prompt and issue the command:
>> gpg --version
>
> I think it's too late for that :/
Don't worry, that command was to check where was your gpg home dir,
but since you already co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Sorry to ask what was already answered some time ago, but: why GnuPG
doesn't implement Camellia? IIRC (but probably I misunderstood it), it
is enabled for Japanese version, since they need it. But in that case,
why it is not enabled for "occidental"
Faramir wrote:
> Sorry to ask what was already answered some time ago, but: why GnuPG
> doesn't implement Camellia?
Camellia is not yet part of the OpenPGP standard. The standardization
process for it is still underway. Once it's standardized, GnuPG will
support Camellia the same as any other al
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Well, I already know why it is not reliable to "securely delete" a file,
I understand the hdd can do the "overwrite" process in the "wrong" place
of the hdd.
But yesterday I had to defrag my hdd, and that made me wonder: why we
can't overwrite a fil
Faramir wrote:
> Well, I already know why it is not reliable to "securely delete" a file,
> I understand the hdd can do the "overwrite" process in the "wrong" place
> of the hdd.
Right.
> But yesterday I had to defrag my hdd, and that made me wonder: why we
> can't overwrite a file, but we still
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> Camellia is not yet part of the OpenPGP standard. The standardization
> process for it is still underway. Once it's standardized, GnuPG will
> support Camellia the same as any other algorithm -- but please don't use it
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:13:32PM -0300, Faramir wrote:
> Sorry to ask what was already answered some time ago, but: why GnuPG
> doesn't implement Camellia? IIRC (but probably I misunderstood it), it
> is enabled for Japanese version, since they need it. But in that case,
> why it is not enabled f
Faramir wrote:
> Don't worry, while I like to change some settings, I also like to
> "play safe". Even if I could use Camellia, I would not use it to send
> messages (maybe it would be interesting to be able to receive messages
> encrypted with it).
There's no real reason to avoid Camellia, by the
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:33:12PM -0300, Faramir wrote:
> Well, I already know why it is not reliable to "securely delete" a file,
> I understand the hdd can do the "overwrite" process in the "wrong" place
> of the hdd.
>
> But yesterday I had to defrag my hdd, and that made me wonder: why we
> c
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:55:20PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Faramir wrote:
> > Don't worry, while I like to change some settings, I also like to
> > "play safe". Even if I could use Camellia, I would not use it to send
> > messages (maybe it would be interesting to be able to receive messag
David Shaw wrote:
> You have the ability to do pretty much that, but:
I actually don't, but for policy reasons. My local policy is "have
total control over what I send, but don't assert control over what I
receive." I guess you could call it my small-l libertarian philosophy
as applied to OpenPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
...
> With a defrag, if you successfully rearrange 95% of the affected blocks
> then you've substantially improved your drive performance. Sure, it'll
> report that it's done 100%, but who cares, really?
Not me ;)
> Wi
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 05:14:15PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > You have the ability to do pretty much that, but:
>
> I actually don't, but for policy reasons. My local policy is "have
> total control over what I send, but don't assert control over what I
> receive." I
On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 07:39:25PM -0300, Faramir wrote:
> Robert J. Hansen escribi??:
> ...
> > With a defrag, if you successfully rearrange 95% of the affected blocks
> > then you've substantially improved your drive performance. Sure, it'll
> > report that it's done 100%, but who cares, really?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
...
> algorithm, cryppies have a lot of confidence in it -- I'm just part of
> the (vocal) minority which screams that OpenPGP has way too many
> algorithms and we need to start cutting algorithms out. I would like
...
>
David Shaw wrote:
> This has nothing to do with your preference list. GPG will happily
> decrypt messages to any cipher, whether it is in your preference list
> or not, as per the spec:
Yes, which sort of demonstrates the point that the preference mechanism
is just needless complexity. It's a r
Hello,
Paperkey is great, and I've put up some Japanese introduction of the tool.
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/unsignedint/20090122/1232679511
One thing I saw on Windows version is that piping doesn't work. It
seems like it corrupt the output when redirection is used, so this
could be something to do wit
Faramir wrote:
> Well, I don't think you are crazy, but I am part of the group that
> likes to be able to chose between several options, provided all the
> options are secure.
That "provided" is the sticking point. Small is beautiful, IMO. YMMV.
There is an apocryphal story about the United S
Hi all,
I have an issue which is described below:
earlier i was using Gnupg-1.0.6 for my appliaction. Now i have replaced it
with Gnupg-1.4.9.
I am facing some issue related to keyrings. As per my application.
I need to perform following application.
I did finally get these encrypt/decrypt proc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> Faramir wrote:
>> Well, I don't think you are crazy, but I am part of the group that
>> likes to be able to chose between several options, provided all the
>> options are secure.
>
> That "provided" is the sticking poi
Faramir wrote:
> Well, you have always said any algo in GPG is safe enough to use...
First, I've said the algorithms are safe enough to use. I've never said
GnuPG's implementation of them is correct and error-free. There's a
_big_ difference between saying "3DES is a trusted algorithm" and say
On Jan 23, 2009, at 6:49 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
This has nothing to do with your preference list. GPG will happily
decrypt messages to any cipher, whether it is in your preference list
or not, as per the spec:
Yes, which sort of demonstrates the point that the preferen
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hideki Saito escribió:
...
> So on Windows,
> instead of doing,
> gpg --export-secret-key 51A00A8E | paperkey --output output.txt
Yes, some months ago, when I tried it, it failed too...
> I have to do
> gpg --output output.sec --export-secret-key
On Jan 23, 2009, at 5:17 AM, rahul kaushik wrote:
Hi all,
I have an issue which is described below:
earlier i was using Gnupg-1.0.6 for my appliaction. Now i have
replaced it
with Gnupg-1.4.9.
I am facing some issue related to keyrings. As per my application.
I need to perform following app
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> Faramir wrote:
>> Well, you have always said any algo in GPG is safe enough to use...
> First, I've said the algorithms are safe enough to use. I've never said
> GnuPG's implementation of them is correct and error-fre
David Shaw wrote:
> OpenPGP benefits from the flexibility of being able to use multiple
> algorithms.
The ability to use multiple algorithms is independent of how many
algorithms are in the spec and in each implementation. Algorithm
agility is a great idea and I think protocols ought be designed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Rippit the Ogg Frog escribió:
>> And the third and last question is: why the AV detected the virus
>> _before_ I visited the site?
>
> Were you using Firefox? It has what I regard as a mis-feature, in which
> it preloads at least the top hit of an
Faramir wrote:
And the third and last question is: why the AV detected the virus
_before_ I visited the site?
Were you using Firefox? It has what I regard as a mis-feature, in which
it preloads at least the top hit of any Google search results. That way
the page will load quicker if you d
Faramir wrote the following on 1/24/09 1:55 AM:
[...]
> Bingo! I found it...
> http://www.technipages.com/disable-the-firefox-prefetch-setting.html
Great, thank you!
>> If you weren't using Firefox, possibly other browsers have the
>> mis-feature now as well.
Flock 2.0.2 (Macintosh) had it.
32 matches
Mail list logo
