On 2019-02-28, Christian, Mark wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 19:39 -0500, mark wrote:
>> I just wanted to set up to send an encrypted message, so I went to
>> generate a
>> public/private key pair using gpg on C 6.
>>
>> Version 2.0.14, copyright 2009?
>>
>> Isn't there something newer than 10
On Wed, 27 Feb 2019 at 19:39, mark wrote:
>
> I just wanted to set up to send an encrypted message, so I went to generate a
> public/private key pair using gpg on C 6.
>
> Version 2.0.14, copyright 2009?
>
> Isn't there something newer than 10 years old?
Well CentOS-6 is nearing 8 years old.. and
On Wed, 2019-02-27 at 19:39 -0500, mark wrote:
> I just wanted to set up to send an encrypted message, so I went to
> generate a
> public/private key pair using gpg on C 6.
>
> Version 2.0.14, copyright 2009?
>
> Isn't there something newer than 10 years old?
Don't mistake copyright for build d
I just wanted to set up to send an encrypted message, so I went to generate a
public/private key pair using gpg on C 6.
Version 2.0.14, copyright 2009?
Isn't there something newer than 10 years old?
mark
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.
Hi,
I've installed centos 7 and updated the packages and trying to install the
epel-release package and hit with following error:
[root@localhost ~]# yum info epel-release
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
Available Packages
Name: epel-release
Arch
Am 28.04.2016 um 21:29 schrieb Albin Otterhäll :
> On 2016-04-28 21:08, Andreas Benzler wrote:
>> repository gpg can be found in
>> /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/
>>
>> read the repo file(s) in
>>
>> /etc/yum.repos.d/
>>
>> cat /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
>> # CentOS-Base.repo
>> #
>> # The mirror sys
On 04/28/2016 02:29 PM, Albin Otterhäll wrote:
Apparently I wasn't clear enough. I'm using Arch Linux (i.e. I haven't
access to the gpg key that comes with an installation) and would like to
verify the ISO I've downloaded. To-do that I need the key used to sign
the "sha256sum.txt.asc" file.
I n
On 2016-04-28 21:24, Thomas Eriksson wrote:
> On 04/28/2016 11:50 AM, Albin Otterhäll wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'm currently using a non-CentOS system, and wondering where I can find
>> the GPG keys so I can verify the checksum file?
>>
>> The page on the website (https://www.centos.org/keys/) only give
On 2016-04-28 21:08, Andreas Benzler wrote:
> repository gpg can be found in
> /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/
>
> read the repo file(s) in
>
> /etc/yum.repos.d/
>
> cat /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
> # CentOS-Base.repo
> #
> # The mirror system uses the connecting IP address of the client and the
> #
On 04/28/2016 11:50 AM, Albin Otterhäll wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm currently using a non-CentOS system, and wondering where I can find
> the GPG keys so I can verify the checksum file?
>
> The page on the website (https://www.centos.org/keys/) only give
> information where I can find them on an already
repository gpg can be found in
/etc/pki/rpm-gpg/
read the repo file(s) in
/etc/yum.repos.d/
cat /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
# CentOS-Base.repo
#
# The mirror system uses the connecting IP address of the client and the
# update status of each mirror to pick mirrors that are updated to and
Hi!
I'm currently using a non-CentOS system, and wondering where I can find
the GPG keys so I can verify the checksum file?
The page on the website (https://www.centos.org/keys/) only give
information where I can find them on an already installed system.
Regards,
Albin
_
Hi all,
I am having an issue. We have a vm that has encrypted data
with gpg. The vm is centos 6.5 and it has multiple users. user1=bob
user2=kevin user3= postgres user4=root. Only postgres has access to the
file in which we keep the encrypted data. I as root will su - postgres,
cd
From: Valeri Galtsev
> Cryptologists (or mathematicians) - you have last word ! (after which we -
> all us others - will shut up ;-)
No, the FBI director has the last word: "Do not side with paedophiles and
terrorists and stop using encryption! Think of the children!"
JD
__
>>>> that is the purpose of *signing*: authenticate the sender and prevent
>>>> tampering of the message.
>>>>
>>>> The purpose of *encrypting* is different: make sure only the intended
>>>> recipient can read (decrypt) the message.
On Wed, October 1, 2014 12:29 pm, Mike wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
>>
>> On Wed, October 1, 2014 11:34 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>> On 10/01/2014 06:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2014 10:19 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>
>
ed
>>> recipient can read (decrypt) the message.
>>>
>>> Sometimes you do both, but you don't have to.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, I agree, but I just answered the question if encrypting with one's
>> own secret key is nonsense, which it isn't,
On Wed, 1 Oct 2014, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2014 11:34 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 06:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2014 10:19 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 05:16 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM
On Wed, October 1, 2014 11:34 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> On 10/01/2014 06:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, October 1, 2014 10:19 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/01/2014 05:16 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
> Hey
On 10/01/2014 06:20 PM, Darr247 wrote:
On 2014-10-01 12:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Somebody, correct me...
It also provides some measure of assurance that tampering of the content
has not occurred between time of sending and time of decryption, though
just *signing* it with the private ke
On 10/01/2014 06:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, October 1, 2014 10:19 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 05:16 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
Hey guys,
Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me
with.
On 2014-10-01 12:07 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
Somebody, correct me...
It also provides some measure of assurance that tampering of the content
has not occurred between time of sending and time of decryption, though
just *signing* it with the private key (without also encrypting) should
acco
On Wed, October 1, 2014 10:19 am, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>
>
> On 10/01/2014 05:16 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>> On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
>>> Hey guys,
>>>
>>>
>>> Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me
>>> with.
>>>
>>> A friend of mine s
On 10/01/2014 05:16 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
Hey guys,
Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me
with.
A friend of mine sent me an encrypted message. So I searched online and
found a a set of keys that correspond
> *gpg: encrypted with RSA key, ID 9A41C766*
> *gpg: decryption failed: secret key not available*
You may have the other parties public key, but it seems that the party sending
you messages used the wrong public key for you to encrypt the message, key ID
9A41C766 does not correspond to your pri
On 10/01/2014 04:58 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
Hey guys,
Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me with.
A friend of mine sent me an encrypted message. So I searched online and
found a a set of keys that correspond with his email address. And imported
them. But when I g
Hey guys,
Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me with.
A friend of mine sent me an encrypted message. So I searched online and
found a a set of keys that correspond with his email address. And imported
them. But when I go to decrypt the message, this is what I get:
Hey guys,
Having a little gpg issue I was wondering if someone could help me with.
A friend of mine sent me an encrypted message. So I searched online and
found a a set of keys that correspond with his email address. And imported
them. But when I go to decrypt the message, this is what I get:
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009, Sean Carolan wrote:
>> Typically this type of problem is caused by environment variables
>> that are set in a login shell, but are missing or different than
>> those set for jobs running under cron.
>
>You nailed it, Bill. Running the cron from root's personal crontab
>worked
> Typically this type of problem is caused by environment variables
> that are set in a login shell, but are missing or different than
> those set for jobs running under cron.
You nailed it, Bill. Running the cron from root's personal crontab
worked fine. Must have been environment variable rela
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Spiro Harvey wrote:
> Is the cron job running as a different user? eg; are you running gpg as
> a non-privileged user and the cronjob as root?
The cronjob script runs from /etc/crontab. Let me try root's personal
crontab instead.
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009, Sean Carolan wrote:
>I have an odd situation here, maybe one of you can help. We have a
>script that runs via a cron job. It's purpose is to decrypt
>PGP-encrypted files in a certain directory. I have tried the command
>two different ways, both fail with the same error mess
Sean Carolan wrote:
> Why does it say "secret key not available"? The output of gpg -K
> shows that the key is in fact available, and this is further confirmed
> when I run the script manually and the files are decrypted just fine.
Is the cron job running as a different user? eg; are you running
I have an odd situation here, maybe one of you can help. We have a
script that runs via a cron job. It's purpose is to decrypt
PGP-encrypted files in a certain directory. I have tried the command
two different ways, both fail with the same error message:
gpg --decrypt $file > ${file%.txt}.decry
I have a very strange situation where the gpg command will fail to
verify whether there is valid PGP data in some files. Decrypting
these files works flawlessly. Here is an example:
[r...@server autoimport]# gpg -vv --verify-files 01UserEnumswValues.txt.asc.txt
gpg: armor: BEGIN PGP MESSAGE
gpg:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:33 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Anne Wilson
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 20:25:44 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Anne Wilson
> >>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lann
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 20:25:44 Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Anne Wilson
> wrote:
>> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> >> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday 17 Feb
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 20:25:44 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Anne Wilson
wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> >> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> >> >> Anne Wilson
On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 2:30 PM, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>> >> Anne Wilson wrote:
>> >> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 19:34:00 Scott Silva wrote:
> on 2-18-2009 11:30 AM Anne Wilson spake the following:
> > On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> >> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >>> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> Anne Wilson wr
on 2-18-2009 11:30 AM Anne Wilson spake the following:
> On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
>> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson
>> wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote
On Wednesday 18 February 2009 18:50:03 Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> >> Anne Wilson wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
> >> >> On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
>
On 2/18/09, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>> Anne Wilson wrote:
>> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
>> >> On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
>> >>> What am I missing?
>> >>
>> >> ask yum:
> Thanks, Phil and Rex.
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 20:44, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> Anne Wilson wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
> >> On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
> >>> What am I missing?
> >>
> >> ask yum:
> >>
> >> [sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
> >>
Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
>> On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
>>> What am I missing?
>> ask yum:
>>
>> [sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
>> ...
>> gnupg2.i386 : Utility for secure communication and data storage
>>
> yu
On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:25:07 Steve Huff wrote:
> On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > What am I missing?
>
> ask yum:
>
> [sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
> ...
> gnupg2.i386 : Utility for secure communication and data storage
>
yum install gnupg2
Loading "fa
John Doe wrote:
>
> From: Steve Huff
>> > What am I missing?
>> [sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
>> gnupg2.i386 : Utility for secure communication and data storage
>
> I have Base and rpmforge repo and "No Matches found"...
> Which repo provides this package? Fedora?
EPEL
--
From: Steve Huff
> > What am I missing?
> [sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
> gnupg2.i386 : Utility for secure communication and data storage
I have Base and rpmforge repo and "No Matches found"...
Which repo provides this package? Fedora?
JD
__
On Feb 17, 2009, at 10:52 AM, Anne Wilson wrote:
What am I missing?
ask yum:
[sh...@srdce ~]$ yum provides /usr/bin/gpg-agent
...
gnupg2.i386 : Utility for secure communication and data storage
-steve
--
If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an
improbable fiction.
I'm beginning to wonder whether I'm missing a package here, as no matter what
I do I get the message that gpg-agent is not running and I should remove
reference to it in the config or fix it. Here's what I seem to have:
Installed Packages
libgpg-error.i3861.4-2
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 14:32:12 Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 January 2009 12:45:16 Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > > > Can someone please remind me of the current approved way
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 January 2009 12:45:16 Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > > Can someone please remind me of the current approved way of starting
> > > gpg-agent at root? Thanks
> >
> > "as root" or "at
On Wednesday 28 January 2009 12:45:16 Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> > Can someone please remind me of the current approved way of starting
> > gpg-agent at root? Thanks
>
> "as root" or "at boot"?
>
Sorry - stupid typo. Yes, at boot - or login, to be
On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Anne Wilson wrote:
> Can someone please remind me of the current approved way of starting
> gpg-agent at root? Thanks
"as root" or "at boot"?
/Peter
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Can someone please remind me of the current approved way of starting gpg-agent
at root? Thanks
Anne
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
55 matches
Mail list logo
