On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 23:36, thaj...@gmail.com said:
> any version of the 2.x branch. I do not need GPG4WIN and can not
> understand why the same thing has not been compiled like the version 1.x
> branch.
Gpg4win is the official binary distribution of GnuPG. Use the light
installer and you are don
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 01:07:19AM +0200, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 03:02:07 schrieb Luis de Bethencourt:
> > device in debian:
> > crw-rw-r--+ 1 root root 189, 516 2011-08-05 00:46 /dev/bus/usb/005/005
> >
> > device in gentoo:
> > crw-rw-r-- 1 root pcscd 189, 395 Aug 5 0
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 03:02:07 schrieb Luis de Bethencourt:
> device in debian:
> crw-rw-r--+ 1 root root 189, 516 2011-08-05 00:46 /dev/bus/usb/005/005
>
> device in gentoo:
> crw-rw-r-- 1 root pcscd 189, 395 Aug 5 02:56 /dev/bus/usb/004/012
>
> my user is part of the pcscd group. I just
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 12:14:47AM +0200, Hauke Laging wrote:
> Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 01:49:21 schrieb Luis de Bethencourt:
>
> > I can get/set the information of the card through the root user
>
> > Notice how I can check the status as root, and do SCD Learn as my user.
> > But= not
> > ch
Am Freitag, 5. August 2011, 01:49:21 schrieb Luis de Bethencourt:
> I can get/set the information of the card through the root user
> Notice how I can check the status as root, and do SCD Learn as my user.
> But= not
> check the status as my user (or sign my mails, which is the main problem).
> =
On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 01:49:21AM +0200, Luis de Bethencourt wrote:
> Hi everybody and thanks for the help.
>
> I recently upgraded my GnuPG setup with a Smart Card (GnuPG Card v2).
>
> I can get/set the information of the card through the root user, but this is
> not good for everyday use. I th
Hi everybody and thanks for the help.
I recently upgraded my GnuPG setup with a Smart Card (GnuPG Card v2).
I can get/set the information of the card through the root user, but this is
not good for everyday use. I think I have pinpointed the problem, scdaemon
iny my machine doesn't like anybody b
Will the
On 04/08/2011 05:32 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 08/04/2011 09:16, Werner Koch wrote:
>> * Support the SSH confirm flag and show SSH fingerprints in ssh
>> related pinentries.
>
> First, congratulations on the new release. I've got it up and running on
> FreeBSD, hope to have the port upd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 08/04/2011 09:16, Werner Koch wrote:
> * Support the SSH confirm flag and show SSH fingerprints in ssh
> related pinentries.
First, congratulations on the new release. I've got it up and running on
FreeBSD, hope to have the port updated soon.
ht
On Thu, 4 Aug 2011 19:23, tigresetdrag...@yahoo.fr said:
> cipher/rsa.c and I found that d is evaluated to match e*d mod f = 1 ,
> with f = phi/gcd((p-1),(q-1)) .
> Why is it coded like that ? Is it safe ?
Using the universal exponent of n (lambda, in the code denoted as f) has
the advantages th
On 04/08/11 20:30, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> Perhaps the better question is: *why* does it work? Why are the operations
> equivalent?
H. Per the Handbook of Applied Cryptography 5th ed[1], section 8.5,
computation of d can also be done modulo lambda, with
lambda = lcm(p-1,q-1) = (p-1)(q-1)/gcd(p-
> Why is it coded like that ? Is it safe ?
I'm pretty sure there is only one inverse given n and e, that is, d is unique.
Accidentally choosing the wrong d because you made an algorithmic/programming
error will create a non-working keypair. I'd say, since it works, it is correct.
Perhaps the bett
I success to catch the numbers with a blank passphrase and pgpdump.
I found something strange with the number d. The operation e*d mod phi
is not equal to 1, as expected with the RSA algo. I looked in
cipher/rsa.c and I found that d is evaluated to match e*d mod f = 1 ,
with f = phi/gcd((p-1),
Hello!
We are pleased to announce the availability of a new stable GnuPG-2
release: Version 2.0.18.
The GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) is GNU's tool for secure communication
and data storage. It can be used to encrypt data, create digital
signatures, help authenticating using Secure Shell and to pro
On 04/08/11 17:11, Johan Wevers wrote:
> An even more subtle way to add a backdoor would be tampering with the
> RNG that creates the session keys and the factors in key generation. A
> bug such as this existed in the Unix version of pgp 5.0 and it took
> quite some time before it was found.
Let's
On 03/08/11 12:43, Sébastien wrote:
> I know that gpg is an hybrid system. I want to know these numbers to check
> with a mathematica-like program that numbers supposed to be primes are
> actually real prime numbers.
And suppose GnuPG accidentally picked a composite. What would be the security
i
On 04-08-2011 16:14, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
> All that is necessary, is to use pre-canned primes,
> (i.e. to generate a prime which falls within a range of primes
> stored in an offsite area by the implementation.)
This would be fat to easy noticed by inspecting the sourcecode. If you
just
On 8/4/11 10:30 AM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> Ah, I see why you referred to it as "the PRIMES algorithm" -- was
> mislead by a Google search on that string.
PRIMES isn't the name of an algorithm: PRIMES is the name of a problem
in computer science. "the PRIMES algorithm" isn't "the algorithm named
PRI
>Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2011 12:43:17 +0200
>From: S?bastien
>Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
>Subject: Re: Extract numbers from a key
>Message-ID: <4e392645.2020...@yahoo.fr>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
>I know that gpg is an hybrid system.
>I want to know these numbers to check
Ah, I see why you referred to it as "the PRIMES algorithm" -- was mislead by
a Google search on that string.
Did you manage to get an unencrypted version of the private key?
(Mobile/Handy)
Am 04.08.2011 15:54 schrieb "Robert J. Hansen" :
On 8/4/11 9:32 AM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> So just a sieve?
On 8/4/11 9:32 AM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> So just a sieve? Isn't that going to take ages on any reasonable key?
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKS_primality_test
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listin
> The PRIMES algorithm can be expressed in Mathematica, and provides an
> exhaustive check. Mathematica's built-in tools don't provide PRIMES,
> but it can be added by a modestly proficient Mathematica user.
So just a sieve? Isn't that going to take ages on any reasonable key?
--
Jerome Baum
H
On 8/4/11 9:05 AM, Jerome Baum wrote:
> What is that supposed to tell you? It's not like Mathematica does an
> exhaustive check either.
The PRIMES algorithm can be expressed in Mathematica, and provides an
exhaustive check. Mathematica's built-in tools don't provide PRIMES,
but it can be added by
> I know that gpg is an hybrid system.
> I want to know these numbers to check with a mathematica-like program that
> numbers supposed to be primes are actually real prime numbers.
What is that supposed to tell you? It's not like Mathematica does an
exhaustive check either.
A healthy dose of para
I know that gpg is an hybrid system.
I want to know these numbers to check with a mathematica-like program
that numbers supposed to be primes are actually real prime numbers.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/ma
I tried the --with-key-data option which gives the numbers I'm looking
for. Unfortunately, this doesn't work with the secret key.
I tried with pgpdump but it doesn't work anymore because numbers in
secret keys are encrypted.
Is there any way to decrypt these numbers in the secret key?
Le 03/08/
26 matches
Mail list logo
