GPG encrypted data (using RSA) can be collected today and easily decrypted
after 50-100 years using a quantum computer. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm
Well let's see. Usually in a new technology, once you are really going
to apply it in the real world, new problems
Hello,
I would like to suggest a probably easier alternative to my proposal
sign encrypted emails:
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2014-January/048681.html
The purpose is that the recipient can be sure that the message has left
the sending system encrypted (and: encrypted for a
On Tue, 13 May 2014 18:58, fizzli...@posteo.net said:
What for is this campaign manager? - Is this a part of goteo or of
gnupg or somebody else?
This is what I had to pay to Sam for his work on the campaign. My
friends at the FSFE suggested that I should run a campaign as soon as
possible and
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 11:32:07AM +1000, Fraser Tweedale wrote:
This behaviour also occurs for me in 2.0.22. Instead of exporting
the key, you could use --list-keys, which works for me:
Yeah, I'm not interesting in running it from the keyring, as I am assuming that
the key is not imported,
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 11:30:21PM -0400, David Shaw wrote:
Looks like a bug. Note that on each of the keys that didn't work there is a
direct signature on the key. This is not very common, and is usually used
for a designated revoker (i.e. I permit so-and-so to revoke my key for me).
I
Since the well known agency from Baltimore uses its influence to have
crypto standards coast close to the limit of the brute-forceable, 128
bit AES will be insecure not too far in the future.
No.
https://www.gnupg.org/faq/gnupg-faq.html#brute_force
On Wed, 14 May 2014 14:51, aaron.topo...@gmail.com said:
Ah. Interesting. Should I file a proper bug against GnuPG then?
Please do that.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
___
Gnupg-users
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 06:26:31PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
Ah. Interesting. Should I file a proper bug against GnuPG then?
Please do that.
Done. https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1640
Thanks,
--
. o . o . o . . o o . . . o .
. . o . o o o . o . o o . . o
o o o . o .
I might have to ask Robert how comfortable his new asbestos longjohns are.
Rather, as evidenced by my willingness to try and tackle this one.
To a first approximation, trust is confidence in the future's
predictability. My friends who grew up in dictatorships tell me the
uncertainty was
Hello everyone,
Just out of curiousity, are there any plans for including Threefish into
GnuPG?
Or does it have to be incorprorated into the OpenPGP standard first and
*then* perhaps baked into GnuPG?
In simple curiousity and because I have a soft spot for Twofish[1]
Sin Trenton
[1] Soft
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:21:36PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Since the well known agency from Baltimore uses its influence to have
crypto standards coast close to the limit of the brute-forceable, 128
bit AES will be insecure not too far in the future.
No.
On May 14, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Sin Trenton sin.tren...@riseup.net wrote:
Hello everyone,
Just out of curiousity, are there any plans for including Threefish into
GnuPG?
Or does it have to be incorprorated into the OpenPGP standard first and
*then* perhaps baked into GnuPG?
Yes. GnuPG
10^10 * 10^6 = 10^16. So far your estimate is off by a factor of a
thousand trillion.
*Ten* thousand trillion. Sorry, that one's entirely my error.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On 5/14/2014 6:11 PM, Leo Gaspard wrote:
Well... Apart from the assumption I stated just below (ie. single
bit flip for AES), I cannot begin to think about an error I might
have done with this one, apart from misunderstanding Wikipedia's
statement that The processing rate cannot be higher than
14 matches
Mail list logo
