Dear All,
I have finally had time to play with the Omnikey 3821 and my OpenPGP
cards. Yesterday, I somehow managed to get the Omnikey reader to accept
pinpad entries. I suspect it was the enable-pinpad-varlen option in
~/.gnupg/scdaemon.conf, which did this. This worked for setting the
password on
On 24/10/13 06:48, Tristan Santore wrote:
> Dear All,
>
> I have finally had time to play with the Omnikey 3821 and my OpenPGP
> cards. Yesterday, I somehow managed to get the Omnikey reader to accept
> pinpad entries. I suspect it was the enable-pinpad-varlen option in
> ~/.gnupg/scdaemon.conf, wh
On 24/10/13 01:15, Stan Tobias wrote:
> No, there's no paradox. Any liar will screw your parameters.
The paradox was very clear in my post where I still called it a dichotomy. There
was a paradox in my thoughts and conclusions, why do you suddenly state there is
no paradox?
And my original state
On 24-10-2013 2:43, John Clizbe wrote:
> OpenPGP menu --> Preferences.
>
> Click [Display Expert Settings] button if only the Basic tab is shown.
>
> On Sending tab. Check 'Add my own key to the recipients list'
I already did that, but I have more than 1 active key and it selected
the one I did
Dear fellow GnuPG users:
I'm running gpg-agent with SSH support enabled, but ssh-add doesn't work as
expected.
The documentation for the "enable-ssh-support" option says that ssh-add will ask
for my SSH passphrase (it does), and that then gpg-agent will ask for my GPG
passphrase, and use it to en
Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 24/10/13 01:15, Stan Tobias wrote:
> > , then why do we believe WoT authenticates anything? Why do we accept, for
> > example, a conversation by telephone to validate a key fingerprint?
>
> Because these are verifications outside the Web of Trust.
Is that the only requi
On 2013-10-24 19:27, Stan Tobias wrote:
Because these are verifications outside the Web of Trust.
Is that the only requirement?
*Sigh*. No, it's the other way around. The Web Of Trust should never be
a basis for your signature, because anyone else can simply trust the
people who already mad
Hi,
I saw a lot of activity in the Debian project about upgrading to a
4096 RSA key,
e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/09/msg3.html
However GnuPG's default is 2048.
Is this zealotry on the Debian front, or something to update in gnupg?
Cheers!
Sylvain
Hello,
I am facing an issue with the Signature verification from one of our clients -
JP Morgan. We currently have FTP+encryption+signature of all the files which
they send to us. However, they recently have migrated their FTP servers to
connect through secure FTP with SSH keys. This is where w
> Is this zealotry on the Debian front, or something to update in gnupg?
Mostly zealotry. According to NIST, RSA-2048 is expected to be secure
for about the next 25 years.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailma
On Oct 24, 2013, at 3:05 PM, Sylvain wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I saw a lot of activity in the Debian project about upgrading to a
> 4096 RSA key,
> e.g. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/09/msg3.html
>
> However GnuPG's default is 2048.
>
> Is this zealotry on the Debian front, or
On Oct 24, 2013, at 4:47 PM, "VINEETA DESHMUKH (CRGL-THIRDPARTY.COM)"
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am facing an issue with the Signature verification from one of our clients
> – JP Morgan. We currently have FTP+encryption+signature of all the files
> which they send to us. However, they recently ha
Sylvain wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I saw a lot of activity in the Debian project about upgrading to a
>4096 RSA key,
>e.g.
>http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/09/msg3.html
>
>However GnuPG's default is 2048.
>
>Is this zealotry on the Debian front, or something to update in gnupg?
Hi,
If
"Robert J. Hansen" wrote:
>On 10/22/2013 11:01 AM, Stan Tobias wrote:
>That phrase, "to a sufficient degree," is important. You cannot ever
>verify someone's identity 100%, not even with DNA testing -- it's
>always
>possible they have an identical twin, always possible the lab work was
>sloppy an
Stan Tobias wrote:
>Peter Lebbing wrote:
>> On 24/10/13 01:15, Stan Tobias wrote:
>> > , then why do we believe WoT authenticates anything? Why do we
>accept, for
>> > example, a conversation by telephone to validate a key fingerprint?
>>
>> Because these are verifications outside the Web of Tru
dear group-members,
due to the necessity keeping user data save, iam working secondarily on
the mechanic to implement such behaviour (gnupg) to a service, iam
currently working on.
http://ioioioio.eu/xml/concept.-.progress-files.html
iam still using sha3.keccak to build hashes in the fronten
16 matches
Mail list logo
