On Feb 26, 2010, at 12:04 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> In some cases, the authorities knowing an individual used encryption
>> could be a problem.
>
> Why? Because they have a key on the keyservers? If this is what you're
> worried about, rest easy: there are so many easier ways to learn whet
On Feb 27, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/27/10 9:58 AM, David Shaw wrote:
>> Do you really mean to suggest that a US authority getting email
>> headers - even without a warrant - is easier than typing a name into
>> a search box on a keyserver?
>
>
On Feb 28, 2010, at 12:54 AM, MFPA wrote:
> On Saturday 27 February 2010 at 11:19:43 PM, you wrote:
>
>
>
>> GnuPG doesn't, at least as of 1.4.10, force you to include an e-mail
>> address in your user ID. It merely requests an e-mail address, and you
>> can just press enter and ignore the req
On Feb 27, 2010, at 4:54 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> Doh! Originally sent off list... Maybe Robert got a psychic vibe...
>
> On 2/27/2010 2:21 PM, MFPA wrote:
>>
>> I don't want such a vote. Whether somebody chooses to include an email
>> address in their UID is up to the individual. I have not s
On Feb 27, 2010, at 3:23 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> I agree that "generally speaking, it's a good idea to put keys on the
>> keyservers". I don't know if that makes it conventional wisdom, or who the
>> arbiter of such wisdom might be, but clearly a very common use of OpenPGP is
>> for enc
On Feb 28, 2010, at 4:20 PM, reynt0 wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> . . .
>> The perfect is the enemy of the good.
>
> Just to note, did RJH actually intend to write
> "...the enemy of the good enough.", which I believe is
> the usual quote? The two are rather different i
On Feb 28, 2010, at 8:09 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> You can certainly tell a lot about someone by the signatures on their key.
>> Either directly from the signature or because those signatures point to
>> other keys that have their own signatures, etc. With your permission, may I
>> see w
On Feb 28, 2010, at 11:54 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> David and I apparently had a bit of a misunderstanding. I thought he was
> going to attempt to figure out information based solely on the key material:
> he was using it as a springboard for other research. I think that both of us
> are
On Mar 1, 2010, at 12:20 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> I would like to keep the private portion of my primary key stored offline and
> use an expiring secondary key for day to day signing. To accomplish this I
> have tried backing up the key after creating the secondary signing key, then
> attempt
On Mar 1, 2010, at 2:59 PM, John Clizbe wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
>>
>> Didn't someone write a nice HOWTO about offline private keys at one point? I
>> thought there was one out there, but can't find it at the moment. Can anyone
>> post the URL for Philip?
On Mar 1, 2010, at 3:31 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 1:57 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> What you need to do is an --export-secret-subkeys (there is no such command
>> as --delete-primary-keys). So, starting from a state where your whole key
>> (primary and all secondar
On Mar 1, 2010, at 4:11 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> On 3/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>>> This does the trick, but I still do not understand why
>>> --delete-secret-key removes BOTH the primary and subkey secrets
>>> when I specifically gave only the ID of the su
On Feb 28, 2010, at 2:58 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
> On 2/28/2010 10:41 AM, Mario Castelán Castro wrote:
>> February 27th 2010 in gnupg-users@gnupg.org thread "Hot to give the
>> keyword from the command line"
>>
>> Thanks Laurent, it works :).
>
> Also, if you encrypt to a key, you shouldn't need
On Mar 2, 2010, at 9:18 PM, Smith, Cathy wrote:
> Folks
>
> The gpg --import option worked without any problems for importing the OpenPGP
> public keyring. When I try to import the secret keyring, I get the following
> message:
>
> [app1 ~/.gnupg]$ gpg --import secring.skr
> gpg: key B4A839CC
On Mar 3, 2010, at 11:16 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 03:53:27PM +, MFPA wrote:
>> There are privacy issues, especially if user-ids on the key contain
>> email addresses. In some cases, the authorities knowing an individual
>> used encryption could be a problem.
>
> There
On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have installed the CLI version of GPG.
>
> I understand that GPG options have to be set in a configuration file.
> The configuration file can be created if it doesn't exist as per a
> previous thread here
>
> http://lists.gnupg.
On Mar 4, 2010, at 1:20 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 01:12 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
>>> gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
>>> gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0
On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some time ago, I decided to revoke my old ElGamal encryption key and
> replace it with a new RSA one, that I keep stored on a smartcard. (The
> goal is to be ale to decrypt some messages/files with my laptop, but not
> have my keys c
On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 03/04/2010 01:01 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
>> On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>> I'm also not sure what the "signed: 128" suggests in the "depth: 1"
>>> line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
>>
On Mar 5, 2010, at 7:39 AM, John W. Moore III wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Laurent Jumet wrote:
>>
>> Hello Smith, !
>>
>> "Smith, Cathy" wrote:
>>
>>> I've tried using the --yes option without success to suppress this
>>> interactive prompt doesn't pop up.
On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 06:13:17PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Mar 4, 2010, at 4:34 PM, Nicolas Boullis wrote:
>>
>>> Reading RFC 4880 (OpenPGP standard), if I am able to decrypt the session
>>> key, it s
On Mar 7, 2010, at 11:46 AM, MFPA wrote:
> The default configurations of PGP and gpg ask for a name, email
> address, and comment when you create a key. Last time I looked (v8.x),
> PGP would not even create a key without something that looked like an
> email address - hence the a...@b.c in my UID
On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:39 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
> With the recent news of researchers being able to crack 1024-bit RSA
> keys using power fluctuations, I was wondering if it would be a good
> idea to switch the RSA keys I have to some other algorithm. Both my
> signing and encryption keys are 4096
On Mar 11, 2010, at 3:16 AM, john espiro wrote:
> I am using paperkey 1.2 from http://www.jabberwocky.com/software/paperkey/
> and
> dmtxwrite version 0.7.3
> libdmtx version 0.7.3
>
> If I run this command:
> gpg --export-secret-key my...@me.com | paperkey --ignore-crc-error
> --output-type r
On Mar 11, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Matt Burkhardt wrote:
> Long story short, I use amanda for my backups and I've been using
> encryptsimple for my backups. My PC died completely, and I'm trying to get
> the backups onto another machine. I've stepped through the programs and have
> found that it's
On Mar 10, 2010, at 4:07 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
> During exchange of a public key to a 3rd party – they rejected the key for
> not having a compatible cipher; so, after doing some research the key was
> edited within gpg to update prefs on the key which now shows a compatible
> cipher (in thi
On Mar 12, 2010, at 5:27 AM, Matt Burkhardt wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 21:36 -0500, David Shaw wrote:
>> > Long story short, I use amanda for my backups and I've been using
>> > encryptsimple for my backups. My PC died completely, and I'm trying to
>> &
On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Faramir wrote:
> David Shaw escribió:
> ...
>> However, your 3rd party should not have rejected the key. The OpenPGP
>> preferences system is designed to *always* reach a valid answer. Every
>> preference list contains Triple-DES, whethe
On Mar 13, 2010, at 1:13 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> There is no way other than that. 3DES is a required part of OpenPGP, so if
>> you remove it, you're not going to play well with the other programs out
>> there.
>
> --cipher-algo [something other than 3DES] won't do it? Faramir was askin
On Mar 13, 2010, at 5:55 AM, John Clizbe wrote:
> MFPA wrote:
>> On Saturday 13 March 2010 at 12:07:08 AM, in
>> , David Shaw
>> wrote:
>>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Faramir wrote:
>>>> is there a way to disable the usage of 3DES in GnuPG,
On Mar 13, 2010, at 5:14 AM, MFPA wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Saturday 13 March 2010 at 12:07:08 AM, in
> , David Shaw
> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:31 PM, Faramir wrote:
>
>>> is ther
all of the commented lines such as this, and then ran dtmxwrite:
>
> # Secret portions of key C8093ECE9373F385DB82D721245C4CBC467F1AE1
> # Base16 data extracted Sat Mar 13 10:47:10 2010
> # Created with paperkey 1.2 by David Shaw
> #
> # File format:
> # a) 1 octet: Version of th
On Mar 13, 2010, at 8:03 PM, Faramir wrote:
> It was just curiosity. By the way, is it possible to disable some
> other encryption algo, but without forcing GnuPG to use a chosen algo? I
> mean... lets suppose I don't want to use AES, but I'm ok with twofish,
> 3DES, and Camellia (any of there wo
On Mar 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> It was just curiosity. By the way, is it possible to disable some
>>> other encryption algo, but without forcing GnuPG to use a chosen algo? I
>>> mean... lets suppose I don't want to use AES, but I'm ok with twofish,
>>> 3DES, and Camellia (any of there
On Mar 14, 2010, at 10:17 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> On Mar 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> Would "--disable-cipher-algo AES" add anything to
>>> that? Or cause potential problems?
>
>> Potential problems. If you have AES in your key
>> preferences, but you disable it, you are telling people
>> to
On Mar 16, 2010, at 10:02 AM, Grant Olson wrote:
> A while ago I stumbled onto instructions to up my prefs to use a better
> hash than SHA1:
>
> http://www.debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/48
>
> Today I was surfing around, and saw some relatively recent posts on the
> list that said s
On Mar 19, 2010, at 4:51 PM, Juergen Weber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> has anybody tried to decrypt a symmetric gpg encryption with Java
> using Java Cryptography Architecture included in the JDK?
>
> echo hello | gpg -c --cipher-algo 3DES -a --passphrase "my pass" |
> java MyDeCrypt --cipher-algo 3DES --
There was *one* auto-reply message, and it has not reoccured. Whatever was
wrong is clearly resolved. Let's move on. There is nothing else to see here.
David
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo
On Mar 20, 2010, at 10:00 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/20/2010 8:41 AM, egg...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but all I see are patents and research
>> projects ongoing at IBM.
>
> You're doing it wrong. Keep searching. I know there's at least one
> paper readily findable i
On Mar 20, 2010, at 6:50 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
> I know this keeps coming up. But what is the best server out there to grab
> keys from users on this list. There are a few of you I don't have keys for.
The easy answer is that is doesn't matter. With few exceptions, you can think
of the keys
On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> I've been following the discussions about new key types, sizes, etc.
> with interest for a while now since my old DSA/El Gamal key (vintage
> 2003) is a bit long in the tooth, and I've been lusting after bigger
> hashes, and better long-term securi
On Mar 20, 2010, at 11:40 PM, Faramir wrote:
> Another thing to consider, is SHA is not as safe as it used to be, and
> it it becomes easily crackeable, signatures issued using SHA can become
> unsafe. So maybe you'd like to use SHA-256 instead of SHA-128. If I'm
> not wrong, you would need to ad
On Mar 21, 2010, at 12:29 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 03/20/10 20:28, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Mar 20, 2010, at 9:09 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
>>
>>> Capabilities: SCA I don't have a particular need for an
>>> authentication key atm, but I might some
On Mar 21, 2010, at 7:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 3/21/10 5:59 PM, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
>> I believe that you meant SHA-1 and not SHA-128, because there isn't a
>> hash called SHA-128.
>
> There is, although the name is unofficial and not widely used.
And more specifically, it is no
On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, MFPA wrote:
>> Howdy,
>
>> Playing around with key generation there was something
>> banging around in the back of my mind and it finally
>> hit me:
>
>> Possible actions for a RSA key: Sign Certify Encrypt
>> Authenticate Current allowed actions: Sign Certify
>> Aut
On Mar 22, 2010, at 12:11 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have just bought a gnupg smartcard, copied my subkeys to it, and it works.
> I
> have been using a key on several computers. Now I want the other systems to
> use the smartcard, too, so that I can delete the private keys there. T
On Mar 23, 2010, at 9:10 AM, MFPA wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 22 March 2010 at 2:30:36 PM, in
> , David Shaw
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 22, 2010, at 8:48 AM, MFPA wrote:
>>> The thing that stands out
On Mar 23, 2010, at 2:09 PM, MFPA wrote:
>> (so no user IDs, or subkeys either)
>
> What happens if somebody converts a subkey into a primary key?
> Can they then create UIDs and subkeys for it?
Sure, a key is a key. What you can do with it (i.e. the concepts of "primary"
or "subkey") is defin
On Mar 24, 2010, at 9:09 AM, Wolff, Alex wrote:
> Company 1 is using gnupg 1.4.7 on SunOS. Company2 is using PGP 6.5.3 on
> Win2003.
>
> Company1 encrypts using Company2's public key and ftp's file in ascii
> mode to Company2.
>
> Company2 tries to decrypt file and receives error :
>
> "bad s
On Mar 26, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Kannan, Aarthi [Tech] wrote:
> Hi,
> I am using gpg1.2.1.
> I created a key using gen-key.
> When I do a –list-keys, it lists my public key fine.
>
> When I do a –list-secret-key, I get the following error:
> gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> gp
On Apr 5, 2010, at 8:20 PM, Brian Mearns wrote:
> Sorry for such a simple question, but I can't find a simple answer. My
> signing and encryption subkeys have expired, so do I just create new
> subkeys, and upload to the SKS servers? Do I have to delete the
> subkeys, or revoke them?
If they've e
On Apr 7, 2010, at 3:18 AM, Andre Amorim wrote:
> What type of encryption the WikiLeaks said to have broken? AES ?
>
> Source:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html
Nobody who knows is talking, at least not yet. This is early days for this
particular story, so perhaps more
On Apr 7, 2010, at 2:08 PM, wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I am wondering if it is possible to remove some specific signature from given
> key. I can remove all signatures by using minimize command (when editing the
> key), but I did not find any command to select the signature I want to
> remove.
When e
On Apr 8, 2010, at 6:28 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> # LC_ALL=C gpg --list-secret-keys eccb5814
> sec 1024D/ECCB5814 2005-09-05
> uid Hauke Laging
> uid Hauke Laging
> uid Hauke Laging
> ssb 2048R/51B279FA 2010-03-04 [expires: 2013-03-03]
> ss
On Apr 12, 2010, at 2:33 PM, M.B.Jr. wrote:
> Hi,
> I have this simple question (sorry for it), regarding "digital rights
> management".
>
> As I understand, DRM in essence is the use of asymmetric cryptography,
> which turns simple public keys into not-publicly-available public
> keys.
>
> Is i
On Apr 12, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Michael E. Strout wrote:
> Hi all,
> We're using GnuPG to both create an asynchronous key pair,
> the public key of which we provide to clients, and to decrypt the files
> encrypted with that certificate after its been transfered. One particular
>
> On Apr 12, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Michael E. Strout wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>We're using GnuPG to both create an asynchronous key pair,
>> the public key of which we provide to clients, and to decrypt the files
>> encrypted with that certificate after its been transfered. One particu
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, Bill House wrote:
> Surely this is a newbie question, but I have been trying for some time to get
> GPG to create a signed and encrypted file. Not wanting to go through the
> whole recompile thing and not caring to use the IDEA cipher, it seems to me
> that GPG sho
On Apr 30, 2010, at 11:02 AM, Crypto Stick wrote:
> Recently the German Privacy Foundation released the open source Crypto
> Stick!
>
> The GPF Crypto Stick is a USB stick in a small form factor containing an
> integrated OpenPGP smart card to allow easy and high-secure encryption
> e.g. of e-mai
On May 6, 2010, at 10:43 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have created signatures with different keys for a JPEG file. You can find
> both the graphics file and the signatures on this web page:
>
> http://www.hauke-laging.de/organspende.html
>
> If I check the signatures, gpg2 2.0.15 (an
On May 6, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Freitag 07 Mai 2010 05:15:10 schrieb Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
>
>> Are you judging based on the size of the block?
>
> Yes. :-)
>
>
>> RSA signatures are
>> significantly larger than DSA signatures, even though they sign over the
>> same digest
On May 10, 2010, at 8:23 AM, Harakiri wrote:
> Hello,
>
> the old DSA standard only supported 1024 bit, however the newer with SHA256
> support 2048 and more.
>
> I tried it with the --genkey command, i tried
>
> Key-Type: DSA2
> Key-Type: DSA-2
> Key-Type: DSASHA256
>
> no dice, how can you
On May 11, 2010, at 7:34 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
> Telling people which key to use doesn't solve the problem. Think about me
> switching places between two computers. Each computer got only one of the two
> encryption secret keys. So if one computer gets compromised I only loose that
> specific
Hi everyone,
I have a few crypto-related domain names that I bought a few years ago for one
project or another. (Among other ideas, I had once thought to set up a 'who
will sign my PGP key?' exchange, but then biglumber.com did it so well, there
was little point in doing it all over again). I
Hi everyone,
I have a few crypto-related domain names that I bought a few years ago for one
project or another. I've been sitting on the domains for a while, but they're
not really doing anyone any good like that. So, rather than just letting them
expire and be snapped up by link farms, I tho
On Jun 3, 2010, at 10:23 AM, Perry, James J. wrote:
>> From what I see on the advertisement, they say it has "Three independent
> RSA keys (signature, encryption, authentication) with a length up to
> 3072 bit." While I don't speak Marketing, it sure sounds like each key
> is 1024 with the three
Hi everyone,
The crypto domain auction has done better than I expected, and we've raised
$185 for the FSF/FSFE. At 8pm US/Eastern (midnight GMT) tonight, the auction
will close and I will notify the winners shortly afterwards.
If anyone wants to grab a domain, now is your chance. See
http://
Hi everyone,
Periodically there is a discussion on this list about whether having your key
on a keyserver will result in more spam. My feeling on this is that you might
get more spam, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the usual onslaught
that streams in daily.
That being said, I just
> On Thursday 10 June 2010 16:00:18 David Shaw wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> Periodically there is a discussion on this list about whether having your
>> key on a keyserver will result in more spam. My feeling on this is that
>> you might get more spam, but it&#
On Jun 11, 2010, at 1:23 AM, Manpreet Singh Dhillon wrote:
> Greetings friends!
> I have this issue with which I want your help.
> Recently I installed Ubuntu Lucid Lynx 10.04 x64 on my laptop and as usual
> copied my .gnupg folder from my backup hard disk to my home directory.
> All my key confi
On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Boris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I would like to know if there is a way to add multiple signatures for a file
> (in a separate file) and check who signed with just one command (so not by
> signing a signed file...).
Sure.
gpg -u signer_1 -u signer_2 -u signer_3 --detac
> On Jun 17, 2010, at 11:33 PM, Boris wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to know if there is a way to add multiple signatures for a
> > file (in a separate file) and check who signed with just one command (so
> > not by signing a signed file...).
>
> Sure.
>
> gpg -u signer_1 -u signer_2
On Jun 14, 2010, at 12:50 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/04/2010 01:35 PM, Micah Anderson wrote:
>> It seems like the best solution would be to build into gnupg the
>> functionality
>> that is similar to the automatic trust database operation: have gpg
>> auto-refresh
>> from the configu
On Jun 14, 2010, at 7:58 PM, MFPA wrote:
> On Monday 14 June 2010 at 5:50:32 PM, in
> , Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>
>
>> Network or keyserver failures during an auto-refresh
>> should be accepted and the rest of the operation should
>> continue (though the last-refreshed time shouldn't be
>> up
On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
> which obviously allows the import of key-signatures marked non-exportable.
>
> It seems to me that it would be helpful to have a variant of this, which
> would only allow import
On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>
> I'm thinking of a situation involving three people: Alice, Bob, and Charlie.
>
> Alice has met Bob in person and has verified his key. Alice does not
> want this information to be pu
On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:25 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On 06/21/2010 06:32 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 21, 2010, at 6:11 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
>>
>>> I see that there is currently the import-option "import-local-sigs"
>>> which obviously all
On Jun 22, 2010, at 9:51 AM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:27:46 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
>> On Jun 22, 2010, at 2:36 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>>>> Can you elaborate on the usage you're describing?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking
On Jun 22, 2010, at 10:09 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> The FAQ for IDEA states that "The official GnuPG distribution does not
> contain IDEA due to a patent restriction. The patent does not expire before
> 2007 so don't expect official support before then."
>
> (http://gnupg.org/docum
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
>
> The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to operate
> orthogonally from every other keyserver I've seen. It's HTTP-only, not
> queryable by a
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:25 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 6/22/10 10:39 PM, David Shaw wrote:
>> I'm not sure about the 2007 patent expiration - I recall it being
>> right around now, actually (2010-2011).
>
> A little digging around revealed the United States pate
On Jun 23, 2010, at 12:03 AM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>> Are you sure about that? "clean" strips off useless signatures (useless
>>> being defined as an invalid signature, a superseded signature, a revoked
>>> signature, and a signature from a key that isn't present on the keyring).
On Jun 27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> All,
>
> How difficult would it be to propose some kind of extension flag to the PGP
> key format that in essence says "don't publish me to a keyserver". Note that
> I'm asking from a technical point of view, not a social (i.e. mak
On Jun 27, 2010, at 4:27 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> How difficult would it be to propose some kind of exte
On Jun 27, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It's effectively a no-op though, as no server supports it.
>>>
>>> I'm looking into making mods to at least one server type (we run one
>>> locally at work), and commit them upstream. If I'm going to wade into that
>>> muck, I
On Jun 27, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
>
>> On Jun 27, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
>>
>>>>>> It's effectively a no-op though, as no server supports it.
>>>
On Jun 28, 2010, at 12:47 AM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
>
>>>>> However, you raise another question: How does a keyserver know who is
>>>>> uploading the key?
>>>>
>>>> At the mome
On Jun 29, 2010, at 5:44 PM, Roscoe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 12:36 AM, Dirk Walter
> wrote:
>> It would seem like a fairly trivial thing to code, just have whatever
>> is writing the file pipe it to GNUPG with the appropriate settings and
>> write output of gpg to disk. I don't think the
On Jul 6, 2010, at 11:06 AM, David Smith wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>> 7) I assume the key rings themselves, holding the keys, are encrypted.
>> How strong is this encryption in GPG? What algorithm is used, etc? One
>> requirement is about compromising the machine with the keys, how easy it
>> would b
On Jul 12, 2010, at 2:30 AM, Remco Rijnders wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Dear all,
>
> I have a file encrypted to two different User ID's, both for which I
> have the public keys as well as the secret key. When I try to decrypt
> the file, it always prompts me for
On Jul 20, 2010, at 4:14 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> Is there a gnupg command to verifiy a hash, not a signature, (e.g.
> MD5, SHA1, SHA256), by entering the hash string and the file or
> text it corresponds to?
No. You can do this with sha1sum (sha256sum, etc), with the --check option.
On Jun 1, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Perry, James J. wrote:
> I just updated to FC 13 and not gpg fails to work for any user. I get the
> following messages when I try to decrypt a file and have the DISPLAY set even
> though I am not using X.
>
> gpg --pgp6 EDI997.20100601091546.pgp
>
> You need a p
On Jul 20, 2010, at 9:38 AM, Wolff, Alex wrote:
> Back in 2005 when I created my private/public key pair I never believed the
> universe would still exist today..hence I set an expiration date of 2010.
> Since it’s expiringin the next couple of months and I am not sure what my
> options are?
>
On Jul 22, 2010, at 4:26 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 7/22/2010 4:19 PM, Andre Amorim wrote:
>> Do we have a "plausibly deniable" option ?
>
> No. Plausible deniability depends entirely on what your adversary finds
> plausible. "I didn't sign that! Look -- I have Thunderbird configured
> t
On Jul 23, 2010, at 11:51 AM, war_is_pe...@privatdemail.net wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm planning on finally uploading my key to a keyserver. Now I had the
> idea to add a primary user ID which contains only my name and no email
> address. The reason would be that i won't "lose" any signatures if I
> cha
On Jul 20, 2010, at 4:48 PM, Cooperider, Brian wrote:
> I’m having an issue opening a file sent to us. They are using pgp commend
> line version 6.5. We are using GnuPG 2.0.12. When we try to open the file we
> get the message File contained no openPGdata. Any help you can provide would
> be gr
On Aug 6, 2010, at 1:42 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 8/6/2010 1:26 PM, Wolff, Alex wrote:
>> A vendor encrypts data with our public key. We receive the file and we
>> attempt to decrypt it. Although the file does get decrypted we receive
>> the warning below. How do we avoid the warning..we
On Aug 11, 2010, at 7:33 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Hello,
>
> a few weeks ago we had a discussion about the no-ks-modify flag (being not
> reliably supported by the keyservers yet).
>
> It certainly makes a difference whether you can accidentally ignore this flag
> or have to ignore it intenti
On Aug 11, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
>> Also, it could be defeated
>> trivially by just exporting a key to a text file (always legal),
>
> When doing this with such a key then a warning should be issued. This would
> have the additional positive effect of making users aware of the p
On Aug 11, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Joseph Isadore Ziff wrote:
> Dear gnupg-users,
>
> I've been wanting to build gnupg2 to have the bin/executable name gpg instead
> of gpg2 but have so far been unsuccessful in tracking down exactly what bits
> of the source code need to be altered. I am running a li
301 - 400 of 1718 matches
Mail list logo
