Hi,
On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 04:02:03PM +1100, gn...@raf.org wrote:
> For some dumb reason I think I was hoping that the RSA
> algorithm wasn't really used to encrypt all the data. I
> thought it was probably used to encrypt a per-file
> randomly-generated symmetric key which was then used to
> enc
Hello,
> On Wed, Jan 02, 2019 at 04:02:03PM +1100, gn...@raf.org wrote:
>> For some dumb reason I think I was hoping that the RSA
>> algorithm wasn't really used to encrypt all the data. I
>> thought it was probably used to encrypt a per-file
>> randomly-generated symmetric key which was then used
On 01.01.2019 13:19, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Hi Wiktor and all,
>
> since my current WKD key is a temporary key i would like to know
> for best practice the following:
>
> In a couple of days i will receive my Kanguru Defender 3000 USB stick
> and then i will create a new key pair and put it on the
On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 08:36, g...@unixarea.de said:
> with the OpenPGP card (HID Global OMNIKEY 6121 Smart Card Reader) after
Take care: Usual Omnikey problems with creating and using large keys
apply.
> How can I meanwhile 'reset' the OpenPGP card so that on next request for
> the secrets (decryp
Hi,
On 01.01.19 08:36, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> How can I meanwhile 'reset' the OpenPGP card so that on next request for
> the secrets (decrypt, signing, ssh) the PIN is requested?
for key slots 1 and 2 there probably is no way to do this other than
unplugging und replugging the device. See also t
On Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:18:25 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote:
Hi Wiktor,
> Revoke your current key locally and generate a new one, now export both binary
> keys (that includes revocation) to a file. Place it in
> .well-known/openpgpkey/hu
> overwriting the old file.
>
> Now, when GnuPG does --l
El día miércoles, enero 02, 2019 a las 11:36:54a. m. +0100, Werner Koch
escribió:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2019 08:36, g...@unixarea.de said:
>
> > with the OpenPGP card (HID Global OMNIKEY 6121 Smart Card Reader) after
>
> Take care: Usual Omnikey problems with creating and using large keys
> apply.
On January 1, 2019 4:13:43 PM AKST, MFPA
<2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
>Hi
>
>
>On Monday 31 December 2018 at 9:06:39 PM, in
>, justina
>colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:-
>
>
>> Shouldn't an email message (for example) be encrypted
>> separately to
>> each BCC recipient,
>
>My opi
On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 11:56:27 -0900, justina colmena via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On January 1, 2019 4:13:43 PM AKST, MFPA
> <2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
> >With hidden-recipient or hidden-encrypt-to or throw-keyids, it is
> >clear how many keys were encrypted to, but the key IDs a
On 1/2/2019 at 3:59 PM, "justina colmena via Gnupg-users" wrote:
>My opinion is that should be the case. However, most MUAs I've used
>include the BCC recipients' keys in the encryption along with the To
>and CC recipients' keys, so any email addresses in the user-IDs of
>these keys are visible
10 matches
Mail list logo
