my gpg key does not conform to rfc4880?

2013-10-10 Thread Brian J. Murrell
I was told by a developer of a piece of software that my key does not conform to rfc4800. He said: According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.2 signatures of version 3 don't have subpackets, which are only available in version 4. Looks like your key from 1998 is not comp

Re: my gpg key does not conform to rfc4880?

2013-10-10 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 10/10/2013 01:45 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > I was told by a developer of a piece of software that my key does not > conform to rfc4800. He said: > > According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.2 > signatures of version 3 don't have subpackets, which are only > availabl

Re: my gpg key does not conform to rfc4880?

2013-10-10 Thread David Shaw
On Oct 10, 2013, at 1:45 PM, "Brian J. Murrell" wrote: > I was told by a developer of a piece of software that my key does not > conform to rfc4800. He said: > > According to http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.2 > signatures of version 3 don't have subpackets, which are only > av

Re: my gpg key does not conform to rfc4880?

2013-10-10 Thread Brian J. Murrell
On 13-10-10 02:02 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > your key 0x9771109462F2B970 appears to be an OpenPGPv4 key, not an > OpenPGPv3 key, so i'm not sure what the person you were talking to was > talking about. Ahh. Interesting. I will point that out to him. > that said, 0x9771109462F2B970 clai

Re: my gpg key does not conform to rfc4880?

2013-10-10 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 10/10/2013 03:12 PM, Brian J. Murrell wrote: > Yeah. I have considered both of those things also. I guess the only > thing that was holding me back was that the existing key has an > investment in signatures on it though. What I am unclear about is how > the authenticity and trustibility of

First steps with GPG, am I off to a good start?

2013-10-10 Thread Robin Kipp
Hello all, I'd like to get started using GPG on a regular basis, e.g. to sign my EMail messages and exchange encrypted messages with a few people. So, I just generated my first keys in this manner: 1. Booted to a secure system. 2. invoked GPG using the following command: gpg --expert --gen-key 3.

Re: First steps with GPG, am I off to a good start?

2013-10-10 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 10/10/2013 7:25 PM, Robin Kipp wrote: > 2. invoked GPG using the following command: > gpg --expert --gen-key Leave off the 'expert' flag and just use the defaults. Seriously, the defaults are reasonable and don't need tweaking. :) ___ Gnupg-users

Re: First steps with GPG, am I off to a good start?

2013-10-10 Thread Hauke Laging
Am Fr 11.10.2013, 01:25:50 schrieb Robin Kipp: > Invoked addkey to generate a 2048 bit RSA sub key, with > encryption and signing capabilities. It seems to me that the more accepted recommendation here is to have separate subkeys for signing and encryption. > 6. Exported all secret and public

Re: First steps with GPG, am I off to a good start?

2013-10-10 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 10/10/2013 09:32 PM, Hauke Laging wrote: > Am Fr 11.10.2013, 01:25:50 schrieb Robin Kipp: > >> Invoked addkey to generate a 2048 bit RSA sub key, with >> encryption and signing capabilities. > > It seems to me that the more accepted recommendation here is to have separate > subkeys for signin

Re: First steps with GPG, am I off to a good start?

2013-10-10 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 10/10/2013 11:25 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > (a lot of stuff snipped) > ... Or, you know, you could just stick with the defaults. :) IMO, new users should be encouraged to use the defaults. This gets them using GnuPG and developing their skills with it. If, once they develop their

standardized security levels

2013-10-10 Thread Hauke Laging
Hello, a few mails ago dkg asked what the use of key policy documents was. That is obviously limited for several reasons. But the conclusion cannot be that we do completely without anything like that. It must be that we solve the problem in a reasonable way. If we don't then we seriously limit