Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Henry Hertz Hobbit]

On 07/16/2013 04:04 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:08, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com said:
> 
>> This will create a single "output file name" with the entire "filelist" each 
>> individually encrypted.
> 
> That is the PGP Zip format, right?  We support it for ages; our tool is
> called gpg-zip and creates a compatible archive.  Technically this is
> not the common ZIP format but the widely used USTAR format.  BTW,
> GnuPG-2 comes with gpgtar which is used on Windows to implement the PGP
> Zip functionality.

Ira, forget my question.  Just send a sample to Werner and Daniel
and you will probably  be in business real soon.  Depending on
the outcome of the experiments with one of your multiple file
archives my question was probably just answered.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Henry Hertz Hobbit]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 07/16/2013 03:24 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> Hi Ira--
> 
> On 07/16/2013 11:08 AM, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com wrote:
>> With PGP you can do something like: pgp -e -r  
>> -o  --archive
>> 
>> This will create a single "output file name" with the entire
>> "filelist" each individually encrypted.
> 
> I don't have PGP, so i still don't know what the resultant file
> format is.
> 
> I did find this man page description (the X.509 certificate for the
> web site is expired):
> 
> https://supportimg.pgp.com/guides/PGP_Command_Line_9.5.2_man_page.html#_Toc74983362
>
>  but it doesn't describe the structure of the archive.
> 
> could you send me (privately) one such archive with two small, 
> non-sensitive text files in it?
> 
> You can encrypt the archive to me using my key by fingerprint,
> after first fetching it from the public keyservers:
> 
> 0x0EE5BE979282D80B9F7540F1CCD2ED94D21739E9

Ira, how is this different from:

- --multifile --encrypt
- --multifile --decrypt
- --multifile --verify
(alternatively)
- --encrypt-files
- --decrypt-files
- --verify-files

where you list the files on the command line or read
them on STDIN?  It won't handle detached signatures.
If you give Daniel a sample you will probably get your
answer much qucker.  Let us know what the end result
is, especially if there is a happy solution.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJR5XP4AAoJEMhFIk/IOUbwEo8H/0Pf8UjdB6pUcyVaR17uGGvz
EvWje0InQh+X3InupBVUJB058SwD361GZ8Qci8523zFQOXrS4hG2NAnkRD2Bu4m4
EqkOG19CdWOaMRsEwAbNqhW/7MUULdW9DMTvcSF5HppypM0mIserZlww6CruKbfU
gFGsmO2v3LFPD6z8tCum+xCnTHpMDvXiMi2YS3xNDsfvZ3GNBaquQa4X7XrKo0us
zqbUkhGsMq0IvjrvWs2CmvZN4LJDLQkWzDUP7EgipJzM91vT6+gyE5R49YlougGw
Z/bC417IFRbfiI11tZiL9ZG5IGqCJ0irImTINggKc66XV/JE/6ySyiBuV/d++Tk=
=lGHO
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:08, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com said:

> This will create a single "output file name" with the entire "filelist" each 
> individually encrypted.

That is the PGP Zip format, right?  We support it for ages; our tool is
called gpg-zip and creates a compatible archive.  Technically this is
not the common ZIP format but the widely used USTAR format.  BTW,
GnuPG-2 comes with gpgtar which is used on Windows to implement the PGP
Zip functionality.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Several master keys vs. master key ,and subkeys

[Sin Trenton]

On 2013-07-16 15:32, Werner Koch wrote:



You have a version B of your key, with a different password than
version A (where the primary key is still present)? Not that one
particular subkey per se has a different password?


Usually this does not happen because GnuPG < 2.1 has no feature to merge
secret subkeys.


If I were to create two different signing subkeys (usage:S), not sure
why, but still, I could give them different passwords?


Yes.  The passphrtase protects the secret part of each key.  It just
happens that gpg always syncs them to work withnthe same passphrase.


If you _can_ assign a separate, different password to a particular
subkey, I assume it is done under --edit-key, but how?


You can't without hacking the code or making advanced use of gpgsplit.



Ah, so even if technically simplified, my previous understanding was 
basically correct. Thank you very much for this clarification, very useful!



Okay.  I have my public key on all of my boxes because I use it to
encrypt the backups (actually I encrypt the backups to several keys).



Which is basically the same then, though I may have fewer boxes (3, with 
mobile included, if we really should count it as a box) :)



The reason for 3 and 4 is that I discovered that during the day, I
more often want to _encrypt_ something to myself, a file or a short
piece of text, in various situations. It can be before uploading a
diary note or a customer file to Dropbox or pretty much just


That is the cool thing with public key crypto.


+1! The day the practical possibilities of this dawned on me was a day 
of awsumness.


Bests

Sin T.

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

On 07/16/2013 10:49 AM, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com wrote:
> We are converting from using PGP to using GnuPG and we are trying to make it 
> seamless to our customers. Using PGP, when we had multiple files to  deliver, 
> we could have each file encrypted and placed into a PGP archive. The client 
> could then decipher the archive to extract al the encrypted files.

what is the format of the archive you were used to creating with PGP?

Are you talking about PGP's "self-decrypting archive" format?

https://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH149840

Or some other format?  If you're not sure about the details, can you
send a small example archive (containing non-sensitive material,
obviously) to the list, or to me privately?

Regards,

--dkg



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Daniel Kahn Gillmor]

Hi Ira--

On 07/16/2013 11:08 AM, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com wrote:
> With PGP you can do something like:
>   pgp -e -r   -o  --archive
> 
> This will create a single "output file name" with the entire "filelist" each 
> individually encrypted.

I don't have PGP, so i still don't know what the resultant file format is.

I did find this man page description (the X.509 certificate for the web
site is expired):

https://supportimg.pgp.com/guides/PGP_Command_Line_9.5.2_man_page.html#_Toc74983362

but it doesn't describe the structure of the archive.

could you send me (privately) one such archive with two small,
non-sensitive text files in it?

You can encrypt the archive to me using my key by fingerprint, after
first fetching it from the public keyservers:

 0x0EE5BE979282D80B9F7540F1CCD2ED94D21739E9

Regards,

--dkg



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

RE: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Ira.Kirschner]

With PGP you can do something like:
pgp -e -r   -o  --archive

This will create a single "output file name" with the entire "filelist" each 
individually encrypted.

-Original Message-
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor [mailto:d...@fifthhorseman.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2013 10:58 AM
To: Kirschner, Ira; GnuPG Users
Subject: Re: encrypting multiple files into a single output file

On 07/16/2013 10:49 AM, ira.kirsch...@sungard.com wrote:
> We are converting from using PGP to using GnuPG and we are trying to make it 
> seamless to our customers. Using PGP, when we had multiple files to  deliver, 
> we could have each file encrypted and placed into a PGP archive. The client 
> could then decipher the archive to extract al the encrypted files.

what is the format of the archive you were used to creating with PGP?

Are you talking about PGP's "self-decrypting archive" format?

https://www.symantec.com/business/support/index?page=content&id=TECH149840

Or some other format?  If you're not sure about the details, can you
send a small example archive (containing non-sensitive material,
obviously) to the list, or to me privately?

Regards,

--dkg

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

encrypting multiple files into a single output file

[Ira.Kirschner]

We are converting from using PGP to using GnuPG and we are trying to make it 
seamless to our customers. Using PGP, when we had multiple files to  deliver, 
we could have each file encrypted and placed into a PGP archive. The client 
could then decipher the archive to extract al the encrypted files.

Is there a similar function using GnuPG? If I use tar or zip then our 
conversion to GnuPG is not going to be seamless to the client.

Ira Kirschner * CIO * Wall Street Concepts * Capital Markets * SunGard * 59 
Maiden Lane, 32nd Floor, New York, NY 10038 *
Direct (646) 445-1087 * Tel (646) 445-1099 ext 1087 * Mobile (917) 847-1686 * 
ira.kirsch...@sungard.com * 
www.sungard.com

[Description: Description: Description: Description: 
coc-signature-03-2012]

Join the online conversation with SunGard's customers, partners and Industry 
experts and find an event near you at: 
www.sungard.com/ten.

CONFIDENTIALITY: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain 
confidential, proprietary and privileged information, and unauthorized 
disclosure or use is prohibited.  If you receive this e-mail in error, please 
notify the sender and delete this e-mail from your system.

<>___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Several master keys vs. master key ,and subkeys

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:21, biggles.tren...@gmail.com said:

> A GnuPG key has a private key and a public key. When you first create

All public key algorithms work with the concept of a keypair.  GnuPG
does the same.  This is the low level maths.  To make it usable we need
to bind mail addresses to the key (user IDs) and securely bind them to
the key (self-signatures).  That is the same for OpenPGP and S/MIME.
However, OpenPGP goes further by working with /keyblocks/.  A keyblock
is a collection of primary key with user IDs and several subkeys, bound
by self-signatures and back-signatures to the primary key.  Thus a
keyblock as commonly two keys: A primary and a subkey.

Now this keyblock exists in two variants: as a public keyblock and as a
secret keyblock.  The latter also has the private keys and thus needs to
be kept secure.

> it, you get these two parts, and a different kind of "keys", a primary
> key (usage: SC), and a sub key for encryption (usage: E).

Right.

> You can add and revoke sub keys, as much as you want, as well as UIDs,
> for when you change or add mail addresses, Jabber IDs, etc.

Correct.

> You can also make a version of your key where the primary key is
> deleted and you have two sub keys, one for encryption (usage: E) and
> one for signing (usage: S).

That is a GnuPG feature and is only done for the private part of the
primary key.  It is a private extension to OpenPGP but more or less
irrelevant to the standard becuase it affects only the private key
(OpenPGP uses the term "secret key" instead of "private key" - it
doesn't matter).

> You have a version B of your key, with a different password than
> version A (where the primary key is still present)? Not that one
> particular subkey per se has a different password?

Usually this does not happen because GnuPG < 2.1 has no feature to merge
secret subkeys.

> If I were to create two different signing subkeys (usage:S), not sure
> why, but still, I could give them different passwords?

Yes.  The passphrtase protects the secret part of each key.  It just
happens that gpg always syncs them to work withnthe same passphrase.

> If you _can_ assign a separate, different password to a particular
> subkey, I assume it is done under --edit-key, but how?

You can't without hacking the code or making advanced use of gpgsplit.

> I have four versions of my key (RSA):
> 1. "Main key", which is only stored offline, and which contains
> primary key and all past and present subkeys, including revoked
> ones. (None so far). This key has passphrase A.

Same here.

> 2. The key I use, which is kept inside the TrueCrypt file mentioned
> above. It has my current subkeys for encryption and signing, but not
> the primary key. This key has passphrase B.

Okay.

> 3. A travel key, basically GnuPG 1.4.13 and Cryptophane on a USB
> thumbdrive. It only has my public key.

A public key is a public key is a public key.  No need to protect it,
you may only want to remeber the fingerprint.

> 4. Same as 3. on my work mobile, using Android and APG 0.8. Only
> public key present.

Okay.  I have my public key on all of my boxes because I use it to
encrypt the backups (actually I encrypt the backups to several keys).

> The reason for 3 and 4 is that I discovered that during the day, I
> more often want to _encrypt_ something to myself, a file or a short
> piece of text, in various situations. It can be before uploading a
> diary note or a customer file to Dropbox or pretty much just

That is the cool thing with public key crypto.

> anything. Decryption happens later, when at my desk or in more secure
> environments, using key version 2.

Right.



Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Several master keys vs. master key and subkeys

[Philipp Schafft]

reflum,

On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 07:16 +0800, Martin wrote:
> * I find them Confusing.

So what's the point here? If he doesn't yet the concept it doesn't mean
it is bad. It's just a statement about him, not the standard. e.g. I
haven't got the concept of armoured concrete, yet I life in a house
build this way and it works great for me.


> * There are disturbingly many (i.e., any at all) bug reports on the
> web about gpg software handling subkeys incorrectly.

I have never seen any. There may be. But there may be also bugs for all
other parts of all other software.


> * It is possible to export a subkey and attach it to a different
> primary key, creating a potential security hole.

To use really use the subkey you need to be abled to use it anyway. If
you are already be abled to use it (having a copy of the secret key
material, knowing the passphrasse...) there is no longer need to attach
it to a diffrent key. You can already use it.

To me this sounds like half-thought thingy: I don't understand the
concept fully so I consider it to have security problems.


> * No ability (without a lot of hassle, anyway) to use different
> passphrases on primary and subkeys.

For the few setups I used this before it worked for me.


> I would like to know if David Soergel's approach has any flaws. As I
> understand it, it works the same as using real subkeys, I would create
> two normal keys, declare one to be my master key and one to be my
> first subkey.

Biggest problem to me with this (some used do it so it *is* a real world
problem to me): this breaks the Web of Trust. The normal calculation
doesn't work anymore as expected. Validity is calaculated wrong (as
those are leaf nodes in the WoT and have only one other node connected).
Also signing those keys isn't a better option: they are replaced yearly
or something. So as soon as the key is expired or revoked I would need
to re-sign the replacing key.

Also if I trust both keys in some way the person counts twice if he
signs some other keys. If he does that for some years he may have a sum
of keys I have signed and trust. If he un-expires them so they become
valid again he can sign some other key and that one becomes valid and
trusted to me with just that person as trust path. So the person can
'inject' a valid key as of the view of my gpg.

So for me that often leads to alterning the trustdb manully that adds
extra work and has some risks of it's own. See above.


> Then I would sign the subkey with the master key which would enable me
> to create a revocation cert for this subkey later, if needed?

You can always revoke any primary or subkey. You just need to be abled
to use the corressponding certification key (your primary key) or create
a revocation certificate (signature) after creating the key and use that
late. (there are more ways to invalidate a key but I don't want to
confuse you more than needed :).


Hope my post is of any help.


-- 
Philipp.
 (Rah of PH2)


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Several master keys vs. master key ,and subkeys

[Sin Trenton]

On 2013-07-16 10:52, gnupg-users-requ...@gnupg.org wrote:

Message: 2

> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:09:38 +0200
> From: Werner Koch  
> To: Martin 
> Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org

Subject: Re: Several master keys vs. master key and subkeys

> Message-ID: <87k3krj58d@vigenere.g10code.de>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:16, martin.brochh...@gmail.com said:

>This person claims that subkeys are not the best option because:

...

>Any reasons why I should stick to GPGs "native" subkey feature?

Yes, because that is a core concept of OpenPGP.


Sorry if this is wordy, but I want to make sure I cover most details.. :)

I thought I had grasped the concept of all various key parts, but now 
I'm getting a bit unsure..


A GnuPG key has a private key and a public key. When you first create 
it, you get these two parts, and a different kind of "keys", a primary 
key (usage: SC), and a sub key for encryption (usage: E).
You can add and revoke sub keys, as much as you want, as well as UIDs, 
for when you change or add mail addresses, Jabber IDs, etc.
You can also make a version of your key where the primary key is deleted 
and you have two sub keys, one for encryption (usage: E) and one for 
signing (usage: S).


But so far, I've always thought that "changing password for a subkey" 
was changing the password for, say like in the second example above? You 
have a version B of your key, with a different password than version A 
(where the primary key is still present)? Not that one particular subkey 
per se has a different password?
If I were to create two different signing subkeys (usage:S), not sure 
why, but still, I could give them different passwords?
If you _can_ assign a separate, different password to a particular 
subkey, I assume it is done under --edit-key, but how?


Just for the record, I use GnuPG 1.4.13 on Windows XP and Linux Mint 14 
Nadia. I tend to use commandline 90% of the time, but for text snippets 
on my work PC, I also use Cryptophane. On my work PC I run it locally 
(local.bat with set GNUPGHOME=.) from inside a mounted TrueCrypt volume. 
Cryptophane is also set to 'no-config'.


I have four versions of my key (RSA):
1. "Main key", which is only stored offline, and which contains primary 
key and all past and present subkeys, including revoked ones. (None so 
far). This key has passphrase A.
2. The key I use, which is kept inside the TrueCrypt file mentioned 
above. It has my current subkeys for encryption and signing, but not the 
primary key. This key has passphrase B.
3. A travel key, basically GnuPG 1.4.13 and Cryptophane on a USB 
thumbdrive. It only has my public key.
4. Same as 3. on my work mobile, using Android and APG 0.8. Only public 
key present.


The reason for 3 and 4 is that I discovered that during the day, I more 
often want to _encrypt_ something to myself, a file or a short piece of 
text, in various situations. It can be before uploading a diary note or 
a customer file to Dropbox or pretty much just anything. Decryption 
happens later, when at my desk or in more secure environments, using key 
version 2.
This is also based on something that may have been acknowledged on this 
list more than once; That at the end of the day, you encrypt to yourself 
much more often than you do to other people, who can't be bothered with 
encryption anyway. ;)


Best,
Sin T

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: GpgEX for 64 bit Windows test version

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:09, w...@gnupg.org said:

> remove the debug output and use this updated fix.  Something might have
> gone wrong during the build process - we need to check.

We figured out what has gone wrong:  The problem affects only the 64
bit version of gpgex.  The gpg4win installer uses some extra code to
build 64 bit versions of some packages.  The build process consists of

   - unpack the source
   - apply patches
   - run configure
   - run make
   - stow the results

Patches are taken from a patches/PACKAGENAME-VERSION/ directory.  For 64
bit the patches are taken from patches/PACKAGENAME-VERSION-ex/
directory.  I was not aware of that separate directory and put my fix
only into the 32 bit patch directory.  Thus the 64 bit version was build
without the fix.

Given that there is currently no need for separate 64 and 32 bit
patches, we will now change this to use only one patch directory.

A new Beta version will be released in a few hours.

Thanks for beta testing.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner


-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Aw: Re: GpgEX for 64 bit Windows test version

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 10:28, jo...@netpage.dk said:
> Yes I am sure. I even uninstalled it completely right now, rebooted
> and then reinstalled!

Thanks.  Well, there is a problem we need to figure out.

Using my Windows versions (no Windows8 here right now), I can't
replicate the problem.  Thus I build debug versions for Andre who then
tested the fix confirmed that the fix is correct.  The last step was to
remove the debug output and use this updated fix.  Something might have
gone wrong during the build process - we need to check.

> Strangely, the gibberish now changed somehow (it is shorter now), but

That is expected without the fix.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: How to back up my key

[Einar Ryeng]

On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 07:03:54AM +0800, Martin wrote:
> 
> Now I have to walk down yet another rabbit hole and read up about secure
> cards :)

You don't really have to, though I prefer the added security and, at least
after you've set it up to work properly, the added conveninece of the Crypto
Stick. 

> Questions b) and c) remain unclear, though:
> 
> b) If I assume that a machine is compromised, do I have any chance to use
> GPG? Entering my password (keylogger) and using my private key (trojans,
> remote control malware) would enable an attacker to gain access to my key,
> right? Are secure cards the only solution to this problem? Maybe I should
> simply not use compromised machines when using GPG :)

There are a couple of different scenarios here. If you've not used GPG after
the machine was compromised, you could in theory continue using the same
subkeys as before. However, the overhead of making new subkeys is small, so I'd
probably opt on the safe side and change them.

If you've been using GPG after the machine was compromised, you definately need
to make new subkeys (with a new passphrase of course) and transfer them to your
machine after reinstallation.

The smartcards (or CryptoStick, which is basically the same thing) is a
solution to this. Each card can have three subkeys, intended for use with
encryption, signing and authentication respectively. These can be created on
the card or (probably most common) generated on a secure computer and copied
onto the card. Now, the thing is that there is no interface for copying any of
the keys back out from the card. To use them you have to insert the card and
enter a pin code on the keyboard. All RSA encryption/decryption operations are
performed on the card.

Of course, the pin code could be sniffed and reused as long as the card is
plugged into the computer. However, the risk is reduced significantly compared
to storing the key files on the disk. The Crypto Stick also lights up when
used and also counts the number of signatures performed, so there is a good
chance you'd notice it quickly if you were under attack. 

> c) Are there major concerns about backing up my TrueCrypt container on
> Dropbox? I could even encrypt it further and put it into an encfs container
> (which I am already doing when I use Dropbox). I have read blog posts where
> people say that they even put their private master key openly into the wild
> because it has a strong passphrase and strong encryption anyways.

No, at least no issues I'd bother to worry about. TrueCrypt is basically as
safe as your password, and your key is also password protected.

I would not put my private keys in the open. Even though I trust my passphrase,
there is a security bonus in having basically two security factors
(passphrase and the file). An example; camera surveillance of you typing your
passphrase would not be enough by itself to steal your identity if they also
need a way to get your private key. 

A good backup is to print the ASCII armoured export of your key on a sheet of
paper and keep it filed somewhere.

-- 
Einar Ryeng


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Several master keys vs. master key and subkeys

[Werner Koch]

On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 01:16, martin.brochh...@gmail.com said:

> This person claims that subkeys are not the best option because:
>
> ### QUOTE ###
>
> Disadvantages of subkeys:
>
> * I find them Confusing.

They mandotory part of the standard and solve the problem of having
separate keys for separate purposes (at least encryption and signing).

> * There are disturbingly many (i.e., any at all) bug reports on the web
> about gpg software handling subkeys incorrectly.

I am not aware of any problems with them.  They have been with us for 15
years!

> * It is possible to export a subkey and attach it to a different primary
> key, creating a potential security hole.

That is only possible for the owner of the primary key.  It is further
not possible to add a signing subkey if you can't create a signature
with that signing subkey.  There is no problem adding a foreign
encryption subkey to your key: Either you can use (know the protection
passphrase) that subkey - then you are the owner; or you can't use it -
then it is useless.

> * No ability (without a lot of hassle, anyway) to use different passphrases
> on primary and subkeys.

gpg works correctly if you have different passphrases.  I use a
different one for my offline key than for my subkey-only online key.
For the user experience different passphrases are the worst thing you
can do.  Remembering a passphrase is difficult enough; entering two
different passphrases for sending mail (signing) and reading mail
(decryption) is a no-go.

> I would like to know if David Soergel's approach has any flaws. As I
> understand it, it works the same as using real subkeys, I would create two
> normal keys, declare one to be my master key and one to be my first subkey.

Oh dear, that is Lutz's pgp 2.6 approach which fortunately led to a
solid spec named OpenPGP.

> Any reasons why I should stick to GPGs "native" subkey feature?

Yes, because that is a core concept of OpenPGP.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Aw: Re: GpgEX for 64 bit Windows test version

[Werner Koch]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 19:51, jo...@netpage.dk said:
> I have the same problem on my german 64bit Windows 8 with Version 2.2.0-beta31

Are you shure that you are using the new version; i.e. did you reboot
your machine?


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users