On Fri, 23 Aug 2013 19:00:27 -0400, Faramir wrote:
> El 22-08-2013 9:56, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> ...
>> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
>> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia,
>> but I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
>
>
On 08/23/2013 11:00 PM, Faramir wrote:
> El 22-08-2013 9:56, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
> ...
>> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
>> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia,
>> but I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
>
> IIRC, some
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 22-08-2013 9:56, Robert J. Hansen escribió:
...
> GnuPG extends this with support for Camellia-128, Camellia-192 and
> Camellia-256. I don't know the reasoning for introducing Camellia,
> but I'm sure there's a solid basis for it.
IIRC, someb
On 08/23/2013 01:09 PM, Randolph D. wrote:
> you can try this one: http://goldbug.sourceforge.net/
> which is available in version 02.
It seems disingenuous to say, "well, GnuPG says they have no connections
to the BSI but if you're concerned about that then try my crypto product
because I have no
Hi Jan
you can try this one: http://goldbug.sourceforge.net/
which is available in version 02.
It has OpenSSL and gpg method, so additional layers of security.
Regards
2013/7/25
> Hi everybody,
>
> why should I trust gpg4win? I have doubts since it was ordered by the
> "Bundesamt für Sicherheit
On 23-08-2013 10:37, David Smith wrote:
>> Yes, I know the mantra, and I'm sure that obvious backdoors are not
>> present because they would be found rather quickly. However, more subtle
>> bugs leading to decipherable messages can take more time to find. The
>> infamous PRNG bug in pgp 5 on Unix
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 10:08, miri...@riseup.net said:
> Is it possible to drop "simply reply to this message" from the
> confirmation options? Requiring a visit to the mailman page, or even a
Not that I know.
For the last two weeks I enabled the confirm+moderate option for
subscriptions. From the
On 07/26/13 22:20, Johan Wevers wrote:
> Yes, I know the mantra, and I'm sure that obvious backdoors are not
> present because they would be found rather quickly. However, more subtle
> bugs leading to decipherable messages can take more time to find. The
> infamous PRNG bug in pgp 5 on Unix is a w
