On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 14:24 +, MFPA wrote:
> My point was that not everybody wishes/chooses to send their keys to
> the keyservers.
>
> Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> up on the servers.
In my case, the reason that I uploaded my keys to public keyservers
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 15:23 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/25/10 9:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
> > Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> > up on the servers.
>
> What you're advocating here is "DRM on the honor system." Don't copy
> the key, don't distribute the key
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 15:23 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 2/25/10 9:24 AM, MFPA wrote:
> > Some people hate the idea and get *very* upset if their key does end
> > up on the servers.
>
> What you're advocating here is "DRM on the honor system." Don't copy
> the key, don't distribute the key
My error. I didn't CC the following message to the mailing list.
On Thu, 2010-02-25 at 02:38 -0800, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> I won't add to the other good replies, except for this. Concerning
> the
> revocation certificate that you would be behooved to create, you
>
On Fri, 2009-12-04 at 02:11 -0200, Juan Manuel Fernandez Arauz wrote:
> Hello, i have the this doubt:
>
> I have tried this:
> gpg --local-user UID1 --edit-key UID3
> > trust
> 5
>
> and later:
> gpg --local-user UID2 --edit-key UID3
> > trust
> 1
>
> But if i later execute this again:
> gpg --l
On Sat, 2010-02-27 at 19:21 +, MFPA wrote:
> There is a widespread perception (rightly or wrongly) that exposing
> your email address publicly on the internet will lead to that email
> address being spammed into oblivion. The new openPGP user is exhorted
> to create a key pair using their name
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:33 +, MFPA wrote:
> > Speculation is great, but speculation isn't fact -- and we need to
> > change the way we do things based on facts, not on speculations. We
> > can agree on facts, but our speculations will likely not overlap very much
> > at all.
>
> I'm sure an
I think that MFPA has succinctly summed up his point of view in these
two quotes.
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 04:33 +, MFPA wrote:
> > What you're saying here is, "even if the advice were sound for one
> > million users, and destructive to the privacy of just one, I still
> > would not change becaus
On Sun, 2010-02-28 at 16:06 -0500, reynt0 wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> . . .
> > Speculation isn't any more progress than an idea is action. Speculation
> > buttressed with facts leads, in time, to progress. But speculation,
> . . .
>
On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
> > (b) the person owns the information has the right to
> > control how it is disseminated, and
>
> The data subject does have various rights concerning the personal
> information that is about him.
Hello MFPA,
How far do the "rights" of the key hol
Hello MFPA,
During this whole debate, you have assumed one thing in your argument
that I don't believe anyone has pointed out as being flawed. You have
assumed that the person (I will call him John Doe) would have decided
to create a UID that contained the personal information that he wants
to ke
MFPA wrote:
> On Saturday 6 March 2010 at 8:55:48 AM, you wrote:
>
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 03:52:02 + MFPA wrote:
(b) the person owns the information has the right to
control how it is disseminated, and
>
> This was someone's re-interpretation of my point. Spot the extra ">"?
Hel
Hello MFPA,
I will summarize the "rights" and restrictions that I believe you say
that an OpenPGP user has with another's public key. I will call this
the rules of "Key Rights Management" or KRM for short.
Rights of the Key Originator
* Can restrict the uploading of
MFPA wrote:
>> In each of these cases, John Doe made the mistake of thinking that
>> he could keep his personal information in his key, and that he could
>> keep his key off the keyservers. If John were to make the wisest
>> decision about keeping his personal informaton secret, wouldn't he
>> choo
Hello MFPA,
I couldn't respond to your post for a while. So here it is.
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 21:38:18 + MFPA wrote:
>> I never asserted that you said the key's originator owned the
>> information stored in the key. I was quoting the context of what your
>> reply about the originator having "s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:05:21 + MFPA wrote:
>> And by the way, I apply this rule to me.
>
> Which rule? You've already stated that you don't believe the holder
> should upload the key if the originator doesn't want, so presumably
> you mean that
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 8 Mar 2010 18:31:41 + MFPA wrote:
>> I am also assuming that the user has intelligence and judgment.
>
> A useful combination, sadly not common enough (-;
Better than useful, it is essential. :-)
>> I mean that he must be able to real
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello MFPA,
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:49:32 + MFPA wrote:
>> I think that I disclosed less than you may have gotten
>> the impression that I did, since those addresses were
>> never private information.
>
> I don't understand the comment that they
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello James,
On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:02:41 -0700 (PDT) James Board wrote:
> I have a fairly large file (about 10 mbytes) that was corrupted on
disk. About 5-10 pages of the file (4096-byte blocks) were lost and
set to zero. The file is a PGP encry
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 20:05:21 + MFPA wrote:
>> I can't speak for other people, but I can for me. Take
>> > a look at the UIDs on my key, which is
>> > 0xC7C66ADF3DB6D884. And also, take a look at my master
>> > key 0x2188A92DF05045C2 that I sign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:40:08 -0300 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 instea
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 15:56:48 -0700 (PDT), James Board wrote:
>> Have you tried decrypting the file with either PGP or
>> GnuPG? Also,
>> where in the file is the corruption?
>
> The file is corrupted (a 4096-byte page full of zereos), at seemingly
r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:12:00 -0400, Kannan, Aarthi [Tech] wrote:
> Here is the command I use:
> gpg --home /home/gpgfiles --keyring /home/gpgfiles/pubring.gpg
> --list-secret-keys
>
> From: Kannan, Aarthi [Tech]
> Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 5 Apr 2010 20:20:06 -0400, 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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Tue, 6 Apr 2010 14:25:09 -0500, Seidl, Scott wrote:
> I am sending data to a vendor for processing and they are at times having
issues decrypting our files. We are ASCII armoring the file before we send
it, and they are receiving a error of:
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:10:12 -0400, Michael Feinberg wrote:
> I have been using PGP on Windows for some time, and am now trying to
> move to Fedora. That implies a move to GPG, which is fine, but I want
> to have access to my PGP files without conve
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:57:15 +0530, Varaprasad Kota wrote:
> I have downloaded "gnupg-2.0.15.tar.bz2" and done the below steps to install
> them on SunOS.
>
> Step1: unzipped it
> Step2: Moved into the parent directory(gnupg/gnupg-2.0.15.tar.bz2) an
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:12:00 +0530, Varaprasad Kota wrote:
> After trying with different options, I was able to compile it with the
> command "./configure AR=gar". I have also GCC compiler installed
> readily. I tried compiling it and it gave me a er
On Wed, 04 Aug 2010 13:57:57 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> It is also worth noting that PGPNET has some very big problems with key
> management. PGPNET users are apparently comfortable wrestling with
> these problems (more power to them for that), but we shouldn't pretend
> the problems don't e
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 12:59:45 -0700, Paul Richard Ramer wrote:
> 681 Messages sent by members of the list
> 628 Encrypted messages
> 36 NETMK messages
> 37-41 Keys
> 37-40 Members
> 32 Members sent encrypted messages
> 13 Members were responsible for not encrypting to someo
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:30:22 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> El 07-08-2010 15:59, Paul Richard Ramer escribió:
> ...
>> So for me that makes approximately 1 in 29 encrypted messages was not
>> encrypted to my key, 1 in 19 of all messages was a NETMK message, and 1
>> in 12 of all
Hi MFPA,
Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:49:40 +0100, MFPA wrote:
>> 681 Messages sent by members of the list
>> 628 Encrypted messages
>
> I'm surprised the difference is so large - it doesn't "feel like" that
> large a proportion is unencrypted. But that number not encrypted looks
> correct if it includes a
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 20:30:22 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> The interesting thing, is a lot of times the NETMK messages are caused
> by less active members who (somehow) broken their configurations.
Actually, the most amusing and bizarre mistake is that people sometimes
encrypt to only *their* key. Th
On Mon, 09 Aug 2010 13:55:41 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> You would have to ask Paul. I suspect, though, that with only a
> low-thirtysomething number of nodes and a total number of messages in
> the neighborhood of six hundred, that there's not much confidence to be
> had in any trend.
Exact
On Sat, 21 Aug 2010 04:21:07 -0700 (PDT), BernePGP wrote:
>> Im really new to this and I have about 80% understood, I am at the stage
>> where I have sent my key in a word file to my recipient that is sorted. I
>> then tell the reciepient to download and load the gnupgp programe and to
>> read the
On Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:55:17 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> Now, the problem: I search keys by an email address, and gpg shows
> me the different matches found, and ask me to enter the number of the
> match I want to import, or O for other, or F to finish. But if I enter O
> or F, it just repeats th
On Tue, 31 Aug 2010 07:49:48 -0400, Ted Rolle Jr. wrote:
> I tried -ace and it aways asked for a userid. -c and -ac worked just
> fine. Apparently when -e is specified that triggers the request for a
> recipient.
Hi Ted. "-c" or "--symmetric" encrypts with a symmetric key that is
derived from a
On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 13:56:08 +0530 (IST), Alex Smily wrote:
> please dont mind if this forum in not the correct one to ask...i have
> installed gnupg on windows... gpg ,gpg2 ,gpgsm are working fine.
> is it possible to generate x.509 certificates using gnupg? if s
> please help me.
This is the righ
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:57:08 -0700, Dan Cowsill wrote:
> After some googling, I decided this would be the best place to start.
> What I'm after is a mailing list or user group that exchanges encrypted
> communications with each other. Or, if no such mailing list exists, I
> wonder if I might be a
On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:45:59 +0200, Remco Rijnders wrote:
> I've looked at this before and haven't been able to tell... is there any
> way to subscribe to this group without needing to create a yahoo ID and
> email address?
No. Yahoo! requires you to log in with a Yahoo! ID, or if you don't
have
On Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:40:11 -0700, Dan Cowsill wrote:
> It seems the algorithms are mapped to algo ID's. I can confirm that the
> algorithm is different than than the one used on my real secret key, but
> I had not been able to find any resources that map the algo ID's to
> their respective names
On 11/10/2010 07:23 AM, Visual GPG WoT Project wrote:
> I've created two key pairs for two different email accounts (lets say
> email1@ and email2@)
> and signed each one with each other and set the owner trust to
> "ultimate"...
>
> When I send an encripted email from email1@ to email2@
> my Enig
Sat, 20 Nov 2010 09:07:13 +0100, Mike wrote:
> I use IMAP for my mailbox and I am accessing this from Win/Outlook and
> Ubuntu/Evolution.
>
> When I get an email and I access it first with Outlook, then I can not
> verify the signature anymore in Ubuntu as the whole email got detached
> into a sep
Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:44:56 +, Lee Elcocks wrote:
> I have finaly managed to import PKSC12 files into GPGSM. Is their a
> way of importing OpenPGP keys into GPGSM?
No. GPGSM is for CMS and S/MIME; GnuPG is for OpenPGP and PGP/MIME.
> The client insists that we use RSA keys using openSSL and bu
Hi,
I am using an OpenPGP v2 card with an SCM SPR-532 smartcard reader, and
I can't get GPG to take a PIN from the pinpad instead of the keyboard.
When I run "gpg --card-edit" followed by any command that requires a PIN
or Admin PIN, I get a password dialog box from pinentry, but I can only
enter
On 01/02/2011 05:32 AM, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I am using an OpenPGP v2 card with an SCM SPR-532 smartcard reader, and
>> I can't get GPG to take a PIN from the pinpad instead of the keyboard.
>> When I run "gpg --card-edit" followed by any command that requires a PIN
>> or Admin PIN, I get a pa
On 01/03/2011 02:25 AM, Michel Messerschmidt wrote:
> Have you tried it with gnupg 2.0.x ?
> IIRC you need at least 2.0.12 for the SPR-532 pinpad and gnupg-agent
> should be running.
> If not, please post more details about your environment and how you
> execute gnupg. The pinpad works for me, so
On Wed, 12 Jan 2011 10:01:17 +, Nicholas Cole wrote:
> That thread is clearly right about the bulk of the paper, which is
> clearly an attack on the user of the crypto. Signing ambiguous
> messages is not a good idea! But what about the suggestion they made
> in section 1.2 about not signing
On 01/11/2011 02:12 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> What I did next was to locate the gpg.conf file in AppData in my
> profile (I am running Windows7 X64).
> Here I found a text part where it looked like one could add a group
> specification.
>
> So I went ahead and added this line:
> group developers =
On 01/12/2011 02:58 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2011 23:12:48 +0100, Bo Berglund
> wrote:
>
> Seems like noone can answer this question
Cheer up. :-) Sometimes it can take a few days before someone can get
you the answer that you need.
> What I want to do is to encrypt a specif
On 01/12/2011 03:42 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> Well, I created a batch file with the command:
>
> gpg -r --encrypt
>
> When I execute this batch file it actually does what I need provided
> that the file is not open in MS Word. If it is then there is a very
> strange error message about an illega
On 01/15/2011 11:34 PM, Bo Berglund wrote:
> It beats me why a program like gpg should detect the keyboard type and
> change its language like this, language setting should be a volontary
> change by the user always! Just think how good it would be for an
> English speaking user to try and use a PC
On 4/14/11 5:02 PM, Felipe Alvarez wrote:
> now, whenever I try to encrypt to user "alice" It fails, saying
> encryption failed: public key not found
>
> The public key is there! But it has a different fingerprint
> (17D11744). GPG is looking for Alice's Old hash fingerprint
> (DE0155B3). How
On 04/15/2011 02:01 PM, Thomas Harning Jr. wrote:
> I've generated and published a 8192-bit non-expiring RSA 'master' key
> for signing other keys as well as 2048-bit RSA keys for signing and
> encryption (expiring in a few years). The master key is protected by
>
> I have not had it signed by ot
On 09/05/2012 12:39 AM, antispa...@sent.at wrote:
> Could you recommend a safe text editor, in the sense it does protect
> the edited contents in memory, but, most important, on the disk (temp
> files and such). Having functions to interact with gnupg would be even
> better.
>
> The point is to ed
55 matches
Mail list logo
