On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:44:38 -0400
"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
Hello Robert,
> half-dozen of us calling this guy's workplace and getting him in
> trouble just because he had a braino when he left on vacation.
It'd serve him right. Unless his employer pays him to read the list.
--
Regards _
On 3/20/2010 7:17 AM, Brad Rogers wrote:
> It'd serve him right. Unless his employer pays him to read the
> list.
There are a fair number of jobs that would. Let's not make
presumptions, and let's let the list moderators handle this.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:17:03 +
Brad Rogers articulated:
>On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:44:38 -0400
>"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>
>Hello Robert,
>
>> half-dozen of us calling this guy's workplace and getting him in
>> trouble just because he had a braino when he left on vacation.
>
>It'd serve him ri
On 3/20/2010 8:49 AM, Jerry wrote:
> Scenario 3:
>
> He is not the boss, nor is he allowed to waste company time on private
> projects. In this scenario, the company gains by outing an employee who
> is wasting company resources and time on private projects.
Scenario 4:
He is not the boss and is
On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 08:49:46AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:17:03 +
> Brad Rogers articulated:
>
> >On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:44:38 -0400
> >"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
> >
> >Hello Robert,
> >
> >> half-dozen of us calling this guy's workplace and getting him in
> >> trouble
Am 20.03.2010 14:01, schrieb egg...@gmail.com:
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 08:49:46AM -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 11:17:03 +
>> Brad Rogers articulated:
>>
>>> On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:44:38 -0400
>>> "Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
[...]
I hope you people realize that you just produced
On Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 06:48:52PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/19/2010 5:36 PM, FederalHill wrote:
> > Are there refernces where such procedures are detailed that I might look at?
>
> http://scholar.google.com
>
> Check for "encrypted database rekeying".
>
>
Maybe I'm doing it wrong,
On 3/20/2010 8:41 AM, egg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all I see are patents and research
> projects ongoing at IBM.
You're doing it wrong. Keep searching. I know there's at least one
paper readily findable in Google Scholar that tells you exactly how
BitLocker does it.
M
There was *one* auto-reply message, and it has not reoccured. Whatever was
wrong is clearly resolved. Let's move on. There is nothing else to see here.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo
On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/20/2010 8:41 AM, egg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all I see are patents and research
>> projects ongoing at IBM.
>
> You're doing it wrong. Keep searching. I know there's at least one
> paper readily findable i
On 19 March 2010 09:49, Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
> I am having problems with unpatched gpg-agent under Snow Leopard with
> gnupg v2.0.15:
> gpg-agent[9482]: can't connect my own socket: Invalid value passed to IPC
> gpg-agent[9482]: this process is useless - shutting down
Continued testing has
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Jerry escribió:
...
> Scenario 1:
>
> He is the boss, therefore no harm is done.
>
> Scenario 2:
>
> He is not the boss; however, he is permitted to use company time on
> private projects. Again, no harm is done.
>
> Scenario 3:
>
> He is not th
I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
Thanks in advance.
Schultz, Allen D
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
On 3/20/2010 6:50 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to
> grab keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't
> have keys for.
"Best" is inherently subjective. However, many people here use
pool.sks-keyservers.net and are ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Allen Schultz escribió:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
> keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
>
> Thanks in advance.
The most recommended one is pool.sks-keyser
I've been following the discussions about new key types, sizes, etc.
with interest for a while now since my old DSA/El Gamal key (vintage
2003) is a bit long in the tooth, and I've been lusting after bigger
hashes, and better long-term security. Up till now my interest has been
mostly academic sinc
On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
> keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
The easy answer is that is doesn't matter. With few exceptions, you can think
of the keys
Howdy,
Playing around with key generation there was something banging around in
the back of my mind and it finally hit me:
Possible actions for a RSA key: Sign Certify Encrypt Authenticate
Current allowed actions: Sign Certify Authenticate
(S) Toggle the sign capability
(E) Toggle the encr
On 3/20/2010 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> Here are my choices for the various options, I'm curious if anyone sees
> anything glaringly horrible about them. :)
ObAdvice: it's probably best to stick with the defaults unless you've
got clear needs the defaults don't meet. Or, if you just like to ti
On 03/20/10 19:15, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/20/2010 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Here are my choices for the various options, I'm curious if anyone sees
>> anything glaringly horrible about them. :)
>
> ObAdvice: it's probably best to stick with the defaults unless you've
> got clear needs
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I've been following the discussions about new key types, sizes, etc.
> with interest for a while now since my old DSA/El Gamal key (vintage
> 2003) is a bit long in the tooth, and I've been lusting after bigger
> hashes, and better long-term securi
On 3/20/2010 11:22 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
> Yes, that's a consideration, however in 5 years we'll have had at least
> 2 iterations of Moore's Law, and in my experience so far I do much more
> signing than I do encryption.
>
> Thanks for the review. :)
>
>
> Doug
>
I stumbled on this wikiped
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Doug Barton escribió:
...
> Signing key: 2048 RSA
> 1024 RSA seems right out based on recent events, however I can't see any
> reasoning for a larger signing key, and I've read all the discussion on
> why this is the default and don't see anything wr
On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Faramir wrote:
> Another thing to consider, is SHA is not as safe as it used to be, and
> it it becomes easily crackeable, signatures issued using SHA can become
> unsafe. So maybe you'd like to use SHA-256 instead of SHA-128. If I'm
> not wrong, you would need to ad
On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/20/10 20:28, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> Capabilities: SCA I don't have a particular need for an
>>> authentication key atm, but I might someday, and I'd really rather
>>> avoid a proliferatio
On 03/20/10 21:35, David Shaw wrote:
>
> GnuPG supports an offline key setup where the primary key is kept offline and
> the subkeys are kept online (and yes, you can store an authentication subkey
> separate from the main key). This works very well for the common OpenPGP
> case where the prima
On 03/20/10 20:28, David Shaw wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>
>> Capabilities: SCA I don't have a particular need for an
>> authentication key atm, but I might someday, and I'd really rather
>> avoid a proliferation of new keys, subkeys, etc. I'm aiming to make
>> this m
27 matches
Mail list logo
