On 05/22/2015 02:27 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
> The key ID was 0x6e767393
It seems for me that this key has subkey of ECC, and that's the cause
of your trouble.
I think that we need to implement some compatibility feature in GnuPG
2.0 (and 1.4).
Last month, I did a fix, but I think that more is
On 27/05/15 06:22, Rex Kneisley wrote:
> As a follow up. Since, version 1.4 is also installed, my assumption
> is that using "gpg" on the command line invokes 1.4, and using "gpg2"
> on the command line invokes 2.x. Is my assumption correct?
Yes.
> If so, is there any way to make the command "gpg
On 27/05/15 10:36, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> On 05/22/2015 02:27 AM, Philip Jackson wrote:
>> The key ID was 0x6e767393
>
> It seems for me that this key has subkey of ECC, and that's the cause
> of your trouble.
You're right - this key has an ECC subkey for signing. I've imported this key
into anot
Hello,
Thank you for more information.
On 05/27/2015 08:53 PM, Philip Jackson wrote:
> I tried to re-import it into the original desktop system to see if the problem
> recurred. (I should have done that before writing the last mail, to confirm
> fault). With the original desktop : gpg 1.4.16 and
On 27/05/15 15:05, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> It was done soon after 2.0.22. I think that 2.0.23 or later doesn't
> have this issue. The signature check is just skipped as unknown algo.
One of the problems with using linux distribution packages. The latest for
Ubuntu 1404 is 2.0.22-3ubuntu1.3 which
Hi,
> I know that a CSPRNG is supposed to make this cryptographically secure
Also, I may be wrong here -- it seems that CSPRNG sometimes refers to
libgcrypt's "Continuously Seeded" and other times refers to
"Cryptographically Secure."
Peace, community, justice,
- George
_
Hi,
I'm not trying to generate multiple random numbers, but just generate a PGP
key one time in a way that is very hard to crack by basing it on a one-time
seed generated manually in a reliably random way.
With software, there's risks that the sequence of numbers generated isn't
fully random and
> number it generates. I know that a CSPRNG is supposed to make this
> cryptographically secure, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) it seems
> that some one-time offline truly random process (like rolling a
> thousand non-biased coins by a no-biased person) is guaranteed to be
> more random than a
> Also, I may be wrong here -- it seems that CSPRNG sometimes refers
> to libgcrypt's "Continuously Seeded" and other times refers to
> "Cryptographically Secure."
It's an unfortunate ambiguity, yes.
"Cryptographically secure" is a misnomer at best: it tends to lead
people into thinking it means
On Wed, 27 May 2015 15:24, philip.jack...@nordnet.fr said:
> One of the problems with using linux distribution packages. The latest for
> Ubuntu 1404 is 2.0.22-3ubuntu1.3 which I have. Ubuntu 1404 is the current
> LongTermSupport version.
I would expect that a LTS version fixes critical bugs.
George Lee:
> I'm not trying to generate multiple random numbers, but just generate a PGP
> key one time in a way that is very hard to crack by basing it on a one-time
> seed generated manually in a reliably random way.
I might be wrong here, but as I understand it you need way more often
random n
;)
--
Toralf
pgp key: 7B1A 07F4 EC82 0F90 D4C2 8936 872A E508 0076 E94E
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Tue 2015-05-26 23:08:56 -0400, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> Lessen was: Wikipedia is(was) not friendly to DIY hardware/software
> people to link there useful information.
Wikipedia sees itself as not a place to publish original research, and
they frown on self-linking to avoid .
However, i think NeuG
Hello,
On 05/27/2015 10:14 PM, George Lee wrote:
> I'm not trying to generate multiple random numbers, but just generate a PGP
> key one time in a way that is very hard to crack by basing it on a one-time
> seed generated manually in a reliably random way.
I'd understand your point. I interpret
On Sun 2015-05-24 06:58:21 -0400, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> It might also be that the package maintainers (hi dkg!) might soon put 2.1.4
> into experimental themselves. So it really depends on how far you want to take
> this "I need the latest and greatest".
Sorry, i'm aware of this but terribly behi
On Wed 2015-05-27 22:40:44 -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Sun 2015-05-24 06:58:21 -0400, Peter Lebbing wrote:
>> It might also be that the package maintainers (hi dkg!) might soon put 2.1.4
>> into experimental themselves. So it really depends on how far you want to
>> take
>> this "I need
Successfully installed Gpg2 experimental. I was pleasantly surprised to find
that I was at 2.1.4 when I ran a version check from the command line.
Also installed GPA. Imported my private key successfully. Can still see all
the public keys I Imported using 2.0.26.
Seems to be running fine so far.
17 matches
Mail list logo
