On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:11, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> But what happens if two identical ciphertext blocks are found? Since
> the cipher is deterministic, the cipher will begin repeating its output.
What do you thing of
But what happens if two identical ciphertext blocks are found in the
s
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 23:37, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
> The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some
> years now, and is what the GnuPG developers recommend for new users.
> Further, a good part of the GnuPG ecosystem is moving to 2.0-only (e.g.,
FWIW: 2.1 even made it int
Hello!
The GnuPG Project is pleased to announce the availability of
Libassuan 2.3.0.
Libassuan is a generic IPC library used by GnuPG, GPGME, and a few other
packages. This release fixes two bugs and introduces new support
functions for the socket wrappers.
Noteworthy changes in version 2.3.0
On 27-08-2015 23:37, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some
> years now, and is what the GnuPG developers recommend for new users.
I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me:
drop support for "obsolete" features
You can have multiple public/private key pairs for your public
identities. Then you can maintain a secret public/private key pair
that links your identities together. Encrypt the private keys of your
public identities with the public key of your secret identity and
publish them. Then all you need t
On 28/08/15 16:12, Johan Wevers wrote:
> I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates me:
> drop support for "obsolete" features and still try to force everyone to
> upgrade, [...]
1.4 is fully supported, but occupies a niche. Support is not dropped, nobody
forces you to up
> I see this attitude a lot among software developers and it irritates
> me: drop support for "obsolete" features
PGP 2.6 *is* obsolete. There's no point in using quotation marks. Read
this URL: http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/836068
"Software developers, Certification Authorities, website owner
On 28-08-2015 18:12, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> 1.4 is fully supported, but occupies a niche. Support is not dropped, nobody
> forces you to upgrade.
It's starting to feel a little bit with ECC not coming to 1.4 (missing
function required to exchange messages with 2.1 users) and v3 key
support remove
On 28-08-2015 18:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> You don't get clearer than that. PGP 2.6 is a dead letter. Obsolete.
Yes, I agree.
> And with PGP 2.6 being obsolete, so are V3 keys.
No they are not. Reading encrypted archives might be usefull,
re-encrypting received mails is impractical and re
> Reading encrypted archives might be useful,
Then keep a copy of PGP 2.6 around.
But don't expect GnuPG, which exists to provide a libre implementation
of OpenPGP and S/MIME, to support ClassicPGP.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
__
Hi,
i have a keyring which contains a master key for certification and 3 sub keys,
one for encryption, one for sign and the third one for authentication.
So my question is which key should i upload to a key server. I mean should i
upload the master key id via `gpg —send-key ` / `gpg —send-key
`
You can either upload the whole public set or none of it, you can't or
at least I know of no way of uploading only the public part of the subkeys.
As for the keyserver, I recommend sks-keyservers.net[1], either
hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net or hkps://hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net
which you will nee
On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 19:14, joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl said:
> It's starting to feel a little bit with ECC not coming to 1.4 (missing
> function required to exchange messages with 2.1 users) and v3 key
If we would add ECC support to 1.4, it would end up as a rewrite of 2.1
with the only difference th
On 08/27/2015 06:41 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
My rationale for this is simple: we don't want to encourage new users to
use 1.4. We want to encourage new users to use 2.0 and/or 2.1.
...
I, personally, don't think it's a big deal to drop mention of 1.4 except
to talk about "it's for system adm
On 27/08/15 20:41, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> I, personally, don't think it's a big deal to drop mention of 1.4 except
> to talk about "it's for system administrators, not regular users".
> However, I'd really like to hear your feedback on this. Should we make
> this change? Yes or no?
Yes
sig
15 matches
Mail list logo
