operating on remote files (Windows) using a UNC
Greetings Whenever I attempt to operate upon a remote file using a UNC, it doesn't seem to find the file. C:\Users\cspitzer>gpg --decrypt "\\remote.machine.com\data\Vendor File Transfers\Archive\Input.2015-06-15.045720.csv.pgp" gpg: can't open `remote.machine.com\\data \\Vendor File Transfers \\Archive\\Input.2015-06-15.045720.csv.pgp': No such file or directory gpg: decrypt_message failed: No such file or directory Regards, Charlie Spitzer 602.420.4123 [GDLogo2] ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: Teaching GnuPG to noobs
Regards, Charlie 602.420.4123 > -Original Message- > From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of > Robert J. Hansen > Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 7:15 AM > To: A.T. Leibson; gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: Re: Teaching GnuPG to noobs > > > What has your experience been teaching inexperienced users how to > > use GnuPG properly? ..snip.. > It's absurd. Who in the class has ever seen a lock with two keys, one > that locks it and one that unlocks? The metaphor's ridiculous: the > locks the students are familiar with require *no* keys to lock and > only one key to unlock ..snip.. There are locks in common use that require a key on both sides, and need a single key to lock and unlock. They can also be changed such that the inside and outside keys are different. For example: http://www.sears.com/schlage-b62n625-deadbolt-keyed-2-sides-bright-chrome/p-SPM7705846522?prdNo=11&blockNo=11&blockType=G11 However, your analogy of a lock and unlock key for the same lock still holds. I'm not sure I've ever heard about one of those. Regards, Charlie ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: My Conclusions
Speaking as someone who has worked in a computer support organization for over 40 years, I must say you make it extremely hard for someone to help you. You have been asked to provide a list of commands and their output numerous times. You have been provided with some command lines to run, with the expectation that you'd provide the output from those commands. Simply stating "That does not work." does not help anyone help you, and the abuse you have heaped upon people trying to tell you that make them not want to help further. Can you, or can you not, provide a cut/paste of what you are trying to do, which includes the actual command lines you are executing, and the output from the commands that are being executed? Regards, Charlie -Original Message- From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-bounces+cspitzer=godaddy@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of da...@gbenet.com Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:12 AM To: Nicole Faerber; gnupg-users@gnupg.org Subject: Re: My Conclusions [Charles Spitzer] That does not work David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: Fwd: GNU hackers discover HACIENDA government surveillance and give us a way to fight back
Or, to put it another way: security through obscurity is ok. as long as no one
finds out, or goes looking for, public information, everything's hidden well
enough.
Regards,
Charlie
602.420.4123
-Original Message-
From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of Rejo
Zenger
Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:14 PM
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: Fwd: GNU hackers discover HACIENDA government surveillance and
give us a way to fight back
++ 22/08/14 11:38 +0200 - Garreau, Alexandre:
>The difference in the relation we have with information is who does it
>concern: when it concerns everybody (like Science, information about
>politics, events, Philosophy, Art, etc. what generally is what
>Wikipedia contains, aka “encyclopedic informations”), it should be
>shared among everyone, and not doing so is taking part in some kind of
>oppression (like stopping people from sharing a software); when it
>concerns only
[...]
That's an interesting point of view - or there is some misunderstanding on my
end. Let's say the NSA does not only surveil all kinds of communications as it
does right now, but it also publishes this information ("open data" in
governmental speak), then there is no oppression according to you?
--
Rejo Zenger
E r...@zenger.nl | P +31(0)639642738 | W https://rejo.zenger.nl T @rejozenger |
J r...@zenger.nl
OpenPGP 1FBF 7B37 6537 68B1 2532 A4CB 0994 0946 21DB EFD4
XMPP OTR 271A 9186 AFBC 8124 18CF 4BE2 E000 E708 F811 5ACF
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
C# .dll availability?
Greetings Is there a GnuPGP project anywhere that does PGP encryption that is usable in a C# application? I know I can execute commands at a command line to do this, but that would require the plaintext to reside on disk somewhere and I'd like to avoid that. I'd also like to avoid having to roll my own, not being sure that I'd get it right. Regards, Charlie Spitzer ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: It's 2014. Are we there yet?
It's happening even faster. My kids, in their mid to late 30s, don't use email at all. It's all quick, instant gratification type communications, like texts or their internet-type ilk. Almost none of their friends uses email anymore. Regards, Charlie 480.505.8800 x4123 -Original Message- From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of Robert J. Hansen Sent: Friday, April 11, 2014 11:47 AM To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org Subject: Re: It's 2014. Are we there yet? > I'll have to disagree. I think there's a growing sense of "uhhh...maybe > these email providers are not such a good idea after all". In 2007-8 (the last time I taught undergrad Computer Literacy), over a third of my students only used email for university business (like submitting papers to me) and talking to their older relatives. Among their own age bracket, most communication was done through Facebook. (Today it's more Instagram and Snapchat and the percentage is approaching 50%, according to my friends who are still teaching.) But yes, email really is on the way out as a communications medium. The younger generation sees it as an antiquated technology. I suspect in another 20 years it'll be used about as much as Gopher is today. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: It's 2014. Are we there yet?
Except when your ISP is silently subpoenaed and they satisfy it without notifying you. There's no telling what the ISP has stashed away without your knowledge. I have had my gmail email subpoenaed, but Google notified me when they received it that they would supply the requested data on a specific date unless I filed in a CA court reasons why they should not do so. Regards, Charlie -Original Message- From: Gnupg-users [mailto:gnupg-users-boun...@gnupg.org] On Behalf Of d...@geer.org Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:54 PM To: Sam Kuper Cc: gnupg-users mailing list Subject: Re: It's 2014. Are we there yet? > One possible answer: https://www.mailpile.is/faq/ * Where does Mailpile store my mail? With Mailpile, your e-mail is downloaded from the Internet (via an email server POP3 / IMAP), and stored locally on the computer where Mailpile is running. * Then how do I access it when my computer is turned off? You don't! Exactly so. Putting aside, for the moment, outright attacks, the individual or the enterprise that outsources its e-mail to a third party thereby creates by itself and for itself the risk of silent subpoenas delivered to their outsourcer. If, instead, the individual or the enterprise insources its e-mail then at the very least it knows when its data assets are being sought because the subpoena comes to them. Maybe insourcing your e-mail is too much work, but need I remind anyone that plaintext e-mail cannot be web-bugged, so why would anyone ever render HTML e-mail at all? Apologies, --dan ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: problem encrypting with someone else's key
Even stranger, I had the same version of gpg installed on a friend's machine. He encrypted a file containing only a HelloWorld with the same key, and I did the same. The encrypted files weren't the same. He didn't use, to my knowledge, a sign on it. Here's the list-packets info. Yes, this was encrypted with the GIS key, which is what I used. C:\Users\cspitzer\Documents\GIS-WOTC>gpg --list-only --list-packets HelloWorld.txt.gpg :pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 16, keyid 9AAF93486C842B6C data: [1021 bits] data: [1023 bits] :encrypted data packet: length: 38 gpg: encrypted with 1024-bit ELG key, ID 6C842B6C, created 2005-02-16 "GIS " C:\Users\cspitzer\Documents\GIS-WOTC>gpg --list-keys 9AAF93486c842B6C pub 1024D/9EBA10E1 2005-02-16 uid GIS sub 1024g/6C842B6C 2005-02-16 and here's the file he sent me: C:\Users\cspitzer\Documents\GIS-WOTC>gpg --list-only --list-packets HelloWorld.txt.bill.pgp :pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 16, keyid 9AAF93486C842B6C data: [1024 bits] data: [1023 bits] :encrypted data packet: length: 32 gpg: encrypted with 1024-bit ELG key, ID 6C842B6C, created 2005-02-16 "GIS " which is the same key. When I exported my key, I used Kleopatra and didn't say to create an export with a sign, so I'm not sure what's exactly in the set of bytes that are in the file. I, of course, can't try to decrypt this, as I don't have their key. I'll have to ask what kind of errors they're getting, or whether they just get gibberish out of it. They only said it doesn't work. Thanks for your help. Regards, Charlie -Original Message- From: Hauke Laging [mailto:mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2014 10:42 AM To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org Cc: Charles Spitzer Subject: Re: problem encrypting with someone else's key Am So 16.03.2014, 15:48:18 schrieb Charles Spitzer: > So, I used gpg 2.22 to import someone's key, and then encrypted a file > with it. I sent it to them, and they couldn't decrypt it for some > reason. It is difficult to debug this if you don't tell us how exactly you did this encryption. Did you encrypt on the command line? Run this for the encrypted file: gpg --list-only --list-packets tmp.txt.gpg You should get output like this: :pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 1, keyid 764311F281F06169 data: [2045 bits] :encrypted data packet: length: 1703 mdc_method: 2 If it looks like this, run gpg --list-keys 764311F281F06169 Is that the key of the recipient? > I then exported the same key, and found that the export file doesn't > match the key that I imported. Shouldn't it be the same, or is there > something in the exported key that is specific to the machine it came > from? You may have made a public signature for the key which, of course, was not part of the certificate you imported. Or the import file contains signatures gpg ignores when importing (or at least when exporting): Useless and old signatures (replaced by newer ones) may be ignored. > How can I debug this? The same way: gpg --list-packets import_file gpg --list-packets export_file > I don't know what they're using to > decrypt, but they are certainly using pgp. May help to know the exact error message they get. They may get a better error message if they try to decrypt in the console: gpg -vvv your_file.gpg Hauke -- Crypto für alle: http://www.openpgp-schulungen.de/fuer/unterstuetzer/ http://userbase.kde.org/Concepts/OpenPGP_Help_Spread OpenPGP: 7D82 FB9F D25A 2CE4 5241 6C37 BF4B 8EEF 1A57 1DF5 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
problem encrypting with someone else's key
So, I used gpg 2.22 to import someone's key, and then encrypted a file with it. I sent it to them, and they couldn't decrypt it for some reason. I then exported the same key, and found that the export file doesn't match the key that I imported. Shouldn't it be the same, or is there something in the exported key that is specific to the machine it came from? How can I debug this? I don't know what they're using to decrypt, but they are certainly using pgp. Their -armor key block came in with a version of PGP Command Line v9.0.5 (Win32). The -armor key block that I exported showed GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32). Could there be some incompatibility between the 2 versions, or is there something I need to do on my end to ensure they can decrypt? Regards, Charlie Spitzer ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
