-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Monday 22 March 2010 at 2:30:36 PM, in
, David Shaw
wrote:
> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> The thing that stands out to me is the lack of an
>> option to toggle the certify capability.
> That is by design, though the reason wh
André_Ludwig wrote on 2010-03-20
14:17:55
>I've got a secret key which is useless (ID AB756AEB) and I want to
>delete it from my keyring. This secret key has no associated
public key.
It's not useless.
Gnupg secret keys already include the public key and automatically
extract it when only
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:10 AM, MFPA wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 22 March 2010 at 2:30:36 PM, in
> , David Shaw
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> The thing that stands out to me is the lack of an
>>> option to toggle t
Hello
After moving servers I was having trouble with GnuPG so I generated a new set
of keys in my own name. They work in the command line:
gpg --encrypt -ao encrypteddata -r rhian...@viva.org.uk data
But not in my PHP code.
Are there any PHP geniuses out there?
This is the bit that doesn't work
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 04:09:24PM +, Rhiannon Buck wrote:
>Hello
>
>
>
>After moving servers I was having trouble with GnuPG so I generated a new
>set of keys in my own name. They work in the command line:
>
>gpg --encrypt -ao encrypteddata -r rhian...@viva.org.uk data
>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 23 March 2010 at 2:27:10 PM, in
, David Shaw
wrote:
>>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> I was thinking about the "special case"
>> of users who maintain a "personal master key" to
>> collect and issue web of trust signat
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:09 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> (so no user IDs, or subkeys either)
>
> What happens if somebody converts a subkey into a primary key?
> Can they then create UIDs and subkeys for it?
Sure, a key is a key. What you can do with it (i.e. the concepts of "primary"
or "subkey") is defin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Paul Richard Ramer escribió:
> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:40:08 -0300 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 mayb
