On 2023-01-15 at 23:14 +0800, Ming Kuang via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Sunday, January 15, 2023 5:52 PM, Christoph Klassen wrote:
> > When I was testing the decryption I also tried "gpg --decrypt
> > test_file.gpg" (without output file) with the 10 GB file and it took 8
> > minutes and 47 seconds. I
On 2022-09-08 at 00:27 +0100, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote:
> > My interest in this is purely historical.
>
> I had a somewhat similar interest a while ago. I was trying to find
> some technical details about the current version of PGP – e.g., which
> algorithms does it support? Did they implement
On 2022-09-25 at 12:02 +, Mik J wrote:
> Hello Bruce,
>
> Yes I read all of that.
>
> But for point a) I started the command gpg2 --status-fd '3' --
> command-fd '4' ... out of the chroot
--status-fd and --command-fd are arguments used to direct gpg to use
different file descriptors (3 and
On 2022-08-04 at 18:58 +0200, Uwe Brauer wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> So is there any other way to run find and some other script to find
> suspicious files? Google is not really helpful
>
> Regards
>
> Uwe Brauer
If you suffer a ransomware attack I would say your problem won't be
*noticing* that. If
On 2022-08-08 at 13:06 +, Vladislav Alekseev wrote:
> So, here is the problem.
> Is there any method to restore my private key or revoke it?
> Why gpg program can't identify my key file? Is the root cause of it
> that I didn't add "--armor" parameter when exporting my private key?
> Thanks.
On 2022-06-18 at 02:14 +0200, GH wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I use gnupg in a remote server, I connect to via ssh
>
> I config gnupg as loopback, it ask me my gpg passwd in the command
> line or in my emacs minibuffer when I use magit
>
> but when I commit in git, I sign my commits, but gpg ask me the
>
On 2022-06-03 at 18:05 +0200, Frank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> can someone explain the configure script to me?
> I am still looking for a way to make my libgpg-error and libassuan
> (see gnupg2 vs gnupg) work with the 'darn' IBM dnf compilation.
(...)
It's not the Right Way™, but since you apparently
On 2022-02-07 at 11:02 +0100, swarna kembayee wrote:
> Dear Team,
>
> Thank you very much, in advance for your time and support.
> I have 3 questions which I would appreciate help on
>
> My environment has GPG 1.4.9 on Solaris 10 OS.
That version is 13 years old, not even the latest
On 2022-02-05 at 09:52 -0700, jonkomer wrote:
> In gpg 2.2, option "--faked-system-time 0" can be used to avoid
> inserting the "wall clock" time/date in the generated key.
>
> gpg 1.4 does not recognize the option. Is there any other method
> (short of changing the OS time) to achieve the same
On 2022-01-29 at 17:34 +0100, Binarus wrote:
> I didn't read the wiki page yet, but I'd like to comment on that
> paragraph. I agree in part, but not completely. The idea is nice, but
> can't be realized in practice.
>
> From my personal experience, it is very hard and consumes time to
> find
On 2022-01-28 at 08:18 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> The problem here is that the public parts of the encrypted private
> parts are not authenticated and by modifying the public parts and
> tricking the user to import such a modified backup, information about
> the secret key can be revealed.
I'm a
On 2022-01-23 at 15:23 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > When generating the key-pair with Re: pgp263iamulti06, the
> > "randomness" is obtained by user's keyboard input. Is it
> > then that the above applies only when the session key is
> > generated?
>
> No, the whole CSPRNG is (probably)
(changing back the thread subject)
On 2022-01-29 at 09:38 -0700, jonkomer wrote:
> I was the one to suggest to them to use e-mail and OpenPG
> encryption. The reasons were two-fold: first to avoid one of
> those centralized, web-browser based, single-point-of-failure,
> essentially insecure
On 2022-01-28 at 20:43 -0700, jonkomer wrote:
> > When the keyserer operator operates outside
> > of the EU I don't think that is a legal problem.
>
> If an individual that requests his personal information is
> removed (i.e., the "right to be forgotten") is EU resident,
> GDPR applies regardless
On 2022-01-14 at 22:39 +, Стефан Васильев via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > What's wrong with simply using a PGP clearsign signature?
>
> I tried in the past to OCR scan armored GnuPG payloads, but
> it introduced errors in some characters. And in case this
> happens to others, how can users not
On 2022-01-14 at 16:42 +, Стефан Васильев wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> If people have a modern Telefax machine, have you ever
> tried out to send a GnuPG signed Fax?
>
> I was thinking about the following:
>
> One prepares his message in the following way:
>
> ---begin message---
>
> Message.
>
On 2022-01-03 at 08:19 +0100, Werner Koch wrote:
> Hello and a Happy Gnu Year!
>
> It has been quite some time since my last status report on GnuPG. I
> have been quite busy working on the project but unfortunately rarely
> active on the usual channels. So, here is a new report telling what
>
On 2021-12-26 at 04:47 +0100, Christian Chavez wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I've currently got some sensitive data I'd like to require _two_ gpg
> keys for decryption/unlocking.
>
> As in both are needed (AND operation), not that either can decrypt on
> their own (OR operation).
> I can only find
On 2021-08-27 at 18:35 +, Стефан Васильев via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have not checked again, but can tell you from the past that they
> check what web browser you are using, because when you use an anti-
> fingerprint add on for your browser and it generates a User Agent
> string with
On 2021-05-27 at 10:44 -0500, Steven Dudley via Gnupg-users wrote:
> When I encrypt to my NEW key, my *.gpg file is created, I double
> click on it, GPG NEVER asks for a passphrase, it just decrypts the
> file.
>
> What is wrong?
Starting with the basics:
Does your new key have a password set?
On 2021-04-25 at 13:11 +, Charlie Salemi via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Would ignoring the file locking on the random_seed file with the --
> no-random-seed-file option cause issues with independent processes
> accessing the same keystore at the same time on different servers?
> If so, what are
On 2021-04-25 at 08:41 +, Vincent Pelletier wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2021 15:19:07 -0700, "C.J. Collier"
> wrote:
> > you could maybe ask a pause admin to decrypt and
> > re-encrypt to a key that you own, sending you back the encrypted file.
>
> Two ideas from a gpg-internal *UN*aware point
On 2021-04-10 at 04:08 +, Kiara Stankovic wrote:
> Hello gnupg-users,
>
> I want to add my existing master key as a subkey to a new master key.
>
> I have followed the steps at
> https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/32935/migrating-gpg-master-keys-as-subkeys-to-new-master-key
> ,
It's sad to see someone like you stepping down by a cause such as this.
But we cannot but thank you for your support to the project all these
years.
So long... and thanks for keeping all the Answers. :-)
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
On 2021-03-18 at 15:15 +0100, john doe via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Reading the URLs given by the OP, I see that the GPG FAQ (1) talks
> about a default of '2048' but in the latest (2.2.17) release of GPG
> it looks like the default is now '3072':
> What keysize do you want? (3072)
>
>
> Am I
On 2021-03-18 at 13:57 +, Nick Cripps via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm trying to encrypt and sign a large file. It takes a while to do
> this, and I then do other things while this is happening. It then
> completes and presumably asks me for my key passphrase, but I miss
> this and it
On 2021-03-17 at 21:16 +0100, Andreas K. Huettel wrote:
>
> OK now it's getting very strange.
>
> On a second PC with the same reader hardware model, the same gpg
> version, and
> the same chipcard, things work perfectly fine.
>
> Could this be a hardware defect (i.e., reader was too long in
On 2021-03-08 at 15:57 +, Call, Margaret wrote:
> Good morning,
>
> We would like to migrate our Symantec PGP to GNU PGP.. We tested the
> system last week with new PGP users and a user that migrated to GNU
> from Symantec. We have fixed all bugs except one:
>
> Our legacy Symantec users
On 2021-03-07 at 00:17 +, Mundis wrote:
> Hello gnupg-users!
Hello Mundis!
> I have recently been required to use GnuPG to encrypt messages, and
> have been endeavouring to create a master key however I think I have
> fumbled.
> I created and deleted some keys while I was trying to work it
On 2021-03-03 at 09:17 +0100, Charles Moulliard via Gnupg-users wrote:
> As the file was present on the filesystem, I suspect another error
> then. Anyway, GPG should report a more user friendly message
> explaining what we should investigate to fix it.
Of course the file is there. The problem is
On 2021-02-11 at 18:24 +0100, Charles Moulliard via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi
>
> We experience a very weird problem when the following command
> is executed on macos using gpg 2.2.27 (installed by homebrew tool).
>
> (...)
>
> Do you know what is the problem ("gpg: [don't know]: invalid packet
>
On 2021-02-24 at 12:40 +0100, Erich Eckner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> thanks, again, just a minor typo:
>
> > --use-tor
> > --no-use-tor
> >
> >The option --use-tor switches Dirmngr and thus GnuPG into ``Tor
> >mode'' to route all net‐ work access via Tor (an anonymity network).
> >Certain
On 2021-01-29 at 18:41 +0100, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> Hello,
>
> this is only to report that Thunderbird 78.7.0 is unable to make
> sense
> of the MIME structure of Werner's email and it only visualizes the
> mailing list footer as the body of the email.
>
> I don't know if the issue is with
On 2021-01-28 at 17:27 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> I think you can find a git repo that contains org-mode source here:
>
> git clone https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git
>
> it's in the misc/id/openpgp-webkey-service folder, and might require
> a modified version
On 2021-01-28 at 17:27 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> I think you can find a git repo that contains org-mode source here:
>
> git clone https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git
>
> it's in the misc/id/openpgp-webkey-service folder, and might require a
> modified version
On 2021-01-22 at 22:15 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> Restricting to only the 200 OK status code would probably be fine. I
> looked at the other 2xx codes and probably no others would apply to WKD.
> Not quite sure about 228 IM Used (not familiar with RFC 3229).
>
> I tend to disagree regarding
On 2021-01-22 at 18:05 +0100, Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> I was more wondering, why gpg decides to go into "tor mode" on box #2,
> when there is actually no tor installed or running. I'm totally happy to
> force non-tor mode via config file, but I'm also open to help find the
>
running
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=$MYPREFIX/lib make check
where $MYPREFIX is the value of --prefix that you passed to ./configure
or /usr/local (the default) if not provided i.e.
LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/local/lib make check
Regards
Ángel
___
Gnupg-users mailing
t; Another approach to make the data uncompressable would be to encrypt
> the keyring with, say, AES and include the key.
Do you mean to compress the returned file with AES? That would be a big
change from existing protocol. And you still need a way to separate the
padding from the key
On 2021-01-20 at 20:29 +0100, André Colomb wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> after some more thought I came up with a possible wording to clarify
> the
> fallback behavior. Assuming that an opportunistic approach is
> preferred, so the direct method should be used not only based on the
> existence of
On 2021-01-20 at 08:08 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:41 AM Ángel wrote:
>
> > A list of all (well, most) openpgpkey subdomains can be easily
> > created.
>
> Yes and I believe that what Neal and you (in your new posting) have
&
Hello all
First, I agree with Neal in considering there is a privacy leak in
using WKD (with no analysis/mitigations).
dkg has already provided an excelent explanation about this, and seems
material directly usable into the Security Considerations section.
As noted, the openpgpkey server
On 2021-01-19 at 17:24 +0100, Erich Eckner via Gnupg-users wrote:
> What can cause a "Connection closed in DNS" error? (Maybe the error
> message can be improved: Doesn't dns use udp by default, which is
> connectionless?)
I think it means dns.c returned DNS_ECONNFIN [1], which gets converted
On 2021-01-19 at 19:29 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Example: Mallory sitting in the United States likes to prepare
> a list (without my consent) and published on a U.S. site,
> so that like SKS key server dumps the whole world can
> obtain a list of all openpgpkey subdomains. So far so good.
>
>
On 2021-01-17 at 23:43 +, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I encountered only one MITM attack a couple of years ago so far, from an
> SKS user. He was a retired police officer from Austria, who contacted me.
> But what you say I was thinking about as well. My proposal was to include
> in
On 2021-01-18 at 17:12 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Neal, maybe you and your team, as professionals, can explain
> what the .well-kown folder in a Web root is good for, because
> it is not only used for WKD and it is also used by many many
> apps, for verification purposes, like
fake NXDOMAIN
would be very hard to detect.
Best regards
Ángel
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 2021-01-17 at 16:28 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> sorry, but simply said I discovered now that a second major and
> trusted
> contender, Mailvelope supported by BSI and audited, works also as
> sequoia-pgp does. Werner and his (shrinking in numbers) supporters
> should think now what do to,
On 2021-01-17 at 00:28 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 12:09 AM raf wrote:
> > What you refer to as "proper" is just the direct method.
> > That's only half of the WKD protocol. There is also the
> > advanced method. Both methods together comprise the WKD
> > protocol.
>
>
On 2021-01-17 at 10:48 +0100, Erich Eckner wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On Thu, 14 Jan 2021, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 14 Jan 2021 01:47, Ángel said:
> >
> >> I understand this to mean it as "only use the direct method if the
&
On 2021-01-16 at 02:20 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 2021 at 1:45 AM raf wrote:
>
> > But there is no certificate that covers that sub-sub-domain.
> > That's why browsers complain if you go to
> > https://openpgpkey.sac001.github.io/.
>
> A quick question, if you don't mind. Why
On 2021-01-16 at 02:32 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Do I understand you correctly that if one uses now a subdomain
> like https://keys.300baud.de/.well-known/etc ... this would work
No. keys.300baud.de would work only for em...@keys.300baud.de
However, for em...@300baud.de, you
On 2021-01-15 at 20:34 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> If you or someone else set's up a web server, for a big organisation
> or for yourself, you simple put in the .well-known folder some
> content which would look most likely then like this:
>
> http://domain.tld/.well-known/etc...
On 2021-01-15 at 07:56 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Don't you think when GitHub, a major player, would have an invalid
> SSL cert, that maybe one of the millions programmers there would not
> have contacted GitHub, like I did, and say hey GithHub you serve
> the global community
On 2021-01-13 at 10:12 +0100, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> I'd like to clarify what Sequoia is doing (wrong).
> (...)
Hello Neal
Thanks for chiming in and explaining the steps taken by sequoia.
I'll try to re-focus this subthread back on the initial topic of your
email.
> The I-D says "Only if
On 2021-01-11 at 16:36 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 2021 at 11:22 PM Ángel wrote:
> > On 2021-01-10 at 18:47 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > > Can you tell me/us in laymen terms how this works with gnupg.org?
> >
> > Sure. Let's suppose you wanted t
On 2021-01-10 at 18:47 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Can you tell me/us in laymen terms how this works with gnupg.org?
>
> openpgpkey.gnupg.org has address 217.69.77.222
> openpgpkey.gnupg.org has IPv6 address 2001:aa8:fff1:100::22
>
> Regards
> Stefan
Sure. Let's suppose you
On 2021-01-09 at 23:40 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Well, I wish Werner would chime in, because what I really don't
> understand why do we have two options, instead of one and why is the
> advanced method the first one to be checked, if we have as first one
> the direct method,
On 2021-01-09 at 14:37 +0100, Stefan Claas via Gnupg-users wrote:
> I believe GitHub is doing it right, because it is a
> valid option according to their SSL cert data, and Werner simply
> overlooked this option.
It is not. A certificate for *.github.io doesn't cover
openpgpkey.sac001.github.io
On 2021-01-09 at 11:44 +0100, Annie Yousar via Gnupg-users wrote:
> How to create a signature packet over K, A1 and E1 signed with K in
> GnuPG?
Hello Ann
The best way would probably be to use two pgp keys: (K1, A1, E1) and
(K2, A2, E2)
You could have two keys (K, A1, E1) and (K, A2, E2) and
everything with
both keys).
It would be nice to have a way to attach a new, modern, key to a
backwards-compatible key, but that seems hard to construct (the
fingerprint would *not* cover the new key, or otherwise, you would need
to (ab)use an ignored portion of the public key block).
Regards
Ángel
On 2020-12-18 at 10:25 -0800, Dave via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Angel,
> Yes, I want the script to run unattended, which the gpg process is
> not the right method, as you say: " you could configure the gpg
> password in the script, but then that would be roughly equivalent to
> the email account
On 2020-12-17 at 11:28 -0800, Dave via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Good Day,
> This very novice would appreciate some help.
>
> My situation:
>
> I have a Raspberry Pi 4 computer running the Raspberry Operating
> System (Raspbian GNU/Linux [buster], Version ID=10) at my home. I
> need it to send
On 2020-12-16 at 14:47 -0500, Novak Boškov wrote:
> Hell everyone,
>
> On this link is the following statement:
> > To help safeguard your key, GnuPG does not store your raw private
> > key on disk. Instead it encrypts it using a symmetric encryption
> > algorithm.
> However, I'm not entirely
On 2020-10-11 at 17:41 +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
>
> I had not set a password, so that the recipients can play with it.
> With a password set the NFC tag can not be written to.
>
Bob may be expecting to receive the safe, read-only NFC tag from Alice,
but Eve might have replaced it with a
On 2020-10-06 at 12:34 +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Mark Fernandes wrote:
>
> Hello Mark,
>
> [...]
>
> > Hello Stefan. Forgive my ignorance, but I'm failing to see the
> > significant
> > benefit of such a method. Is what you are proposing similar to
> > sending an
> > encrypted message on CD
On 2020-09-21 at 12:58 -0400, Andrew Engelbrecht via Gnupg-users wrote:
> My best guess is that these 3 keys are associated with some older
> private keys, and were merely left behind. If there is a way to check
> the fingerprint of the keys they belong to, and to import them, that
> would be
On 2020-08-30 at 20:12 +0200, Björn Jacke via Gnupg-users wrote:
> A rule that forbids HTTP 1.0 requests is not uncommon these days. In
> order to make gpg users' experience better I suggest that gnupg
> should not use HTTP 1.0 but at least HTTP 1.1 and also send a user
> agent header. Actually I
> Am 8. August 2020 02:05:44 MESZ schrieb "Ángel":
> You had some "full" keys (public+private part). Then "moved" them to
> the
> Yubikey, so the private part was now in the yubikey, and locally you
> left just a stub
On 2020-08-07 at 08:33 +0200, Thomas Schneider wrote:
> All subkeys are marked as Stub which is correct because the keys have
> been exported before.
> However now the keys don't exist anymore on the keycard.
>
> Can you please advise how to fix this issue?
>
> THX
You had some "full" keys
On 2020-07-29 at 10:20 -0700, Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users wrote:
> A gpg says "encrypted with 1 passphrase". Are there situations where a
> message
>
> gets encrypted with multiple passphrases?
GnuPG seems to only support encrypting with a single passphrase, but the
OpenPGP format supports
On 2020-07-28 at 18:22 -0700, Ayoub Misherghi via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Before that happens. I am coding a prototype right now that is not going
> to be inadequate; but all this will help me arrive at a better
> understanding, help demonstrate basic ideas and hopefully prepare me and
> others
On 2020-07-29 at 11:26 +0200, Julien Escario via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hello,
> It seems I found a bug in ed25519 key yubikey's support.
>
> Long story short :
> * Generate a ed25519 Gnupg key and 3 subkeys
> * Generate an ed25519 ssh key pair (SSH authority)
> * Generate a SSH certificate by
On 2020-07-09 at 10:19 +0200, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> If you know the fingerprint it is of course easy to find the creation
> date; that are at worst a mere 710 million hashes (from 1998 to now).
> it is just that we don't have the tooling. To make things easier I
> will
> probably
On 2020-07-07 at 18:05 -0500, Andrew Pennebaker via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> I am seeing some strange behavior with gpg --decrypt . I had to
> lookup a password recently, and so naturally pressed Control+C to
> cancel the prompt. However, when gpg terminated, it did not fully
> cleanup
On 2020-07-08 at 23:24 +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Ryan McGinnis via Gnupg-users wrote:
>
> > The thing is, if you can't remember a string of random words, are you
> > likely to remember a string 20 random letters, numbers,
> > and characters? Generally, if your non-randomly-generated
On 2020-06-18 at 16:54 +0200, Stefan Claas wrote:
> charlie derr wrote:
>
> > Is getting those first 5 characters into the output of this string
> > really that amazing? Or am i missing something significant about what
> > the rest of the seemingly random characters represent?
>
> Well, it is
ed
> "black knights".
Thanks for the insight!
Best
Ángel
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 2020-05-24 at 00:14 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > I see a big hole in the validation part. The steps providex are
> > validating the offline identity but not matching it to the certificate
> > uid.
>
> Correct, and that's by design.
>
> There is no -- *NO* -- generally understood meaning
On 2020-05-23 at 03:42 -0400, Cyrus Segura via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> I'm new to GnuPG. I'm trying to install it for MacOSX, and I have a
> beginner's question.
>
>
> ***Do I need to verify more information about the validity of GnuPG
> if:
>
>
> 1.) The SHA-256 checksum on
On 2020-05-23 at 12:30 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > - The trust in the correspondent's public key is established only
> > by comparing the key fingerprint derived programmatically from the
> > locally stored key-file and a copy independently obtained from
> > the owner. The only
Given the number of people that still manage to create (and distribute)
their keys with glaring mistakes, such as misspelling their own domain
name/tld, or providing a key which doesn't match their email address.
Too many people is sending and receiving openpgp emails by actually
encrypting the
On 2020-05-20 at 18:22 +, Kent A. Larsen wrote:
> I've adding logging to our gpg-agent.conf file, and when these errors
> occur the gpg-agent log file has the following error:
> 2020-05-18 09:36:07 gpg-agent[3800] error binding socket to '\\Neofs1
> \Userapps\Apps\GnuPG\Keys\S.gpg-agent':
On 2020-05-08 at 13:27 -0400, Barry Smith via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Understand that I am suggesting the creation of a set of keys, one per
> day, less than 33 keys, generated by one central admin.
>
> Second, i am looking to export the "sec" file for each calender day
> key... so that EACH group
First of all, you have created three threads about it. When you reply to
an email, you need to actually reply that mail. Just using the same
subject does not make the email get into the thread (could you imagine
the threads for emails title "Bug"?).
I am replying to the original thread, and
On 2020-04-25 at 00:20 +0200, Mike Grunweg wrote:
> Am 24.04.20 um 03:57 schrieb Ángel:
> > On 2020-04-20 at 23:15 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> >>> Any ideas what might be the cause, or how I can find out what's wrong?
> >> GnuPG 2.2 changed the way it stores pub
On 2020-04-20 at 23:15 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > Any ideas what might be the cause, or how I can find out what's wrong?
>
> GnuPG 2.2 changed the way it stores public and private keys. If your
> old installation was GnuPG 2.0 and the new one is 2.2, that might
> explain things. The fix
On 2020-04-09 at 10:38 +0530, nithin reddy via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hi All,
>
>
> We are using GnuPG 2.0.14 in CentOS linux servers. We are able to try
> to encrypt and decrypt the files as a root user. Now we are facing
> issues with the normal users who are trying to encrypt a file.
>
>
>
On 2020-02-20 at 12:53 +, fredrik.a.lindstrom--- via Gnupg-users
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We receive PGP encrypted files from several external parties that uses
> many different tools to create PGP files and I have noticed a
> difference between these files that cumbers me.
>
> We never (well
On 2020-01-17 at 06:47 -0700, Mark wrote:
> I was wondering what effect changing the passphrase has on the keys. Not
> only the keygrip file but also on the exported copy of it that can be
> used with other programs. If you change the passphrase, do you need to
> re-backup those keygrip files and
On 2020-01-23 at 17:32 +0100, Jonathan Cross via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hello,
> I would like to batch generate keys, but *not* have a revocation cert
> generated.
> I do not see an option for this, how can it be done?
>
>
> Thanks, Jonathan
Hello Jonathan
See if this helps
On 2019-11-26 at 17:51 +, Yves T via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Dears,
>
> A client uses gpgsm with multiple recipient options. The first option
> refers to his own certificate, the second option to the recipients
> certificate.
> The receiving end has trouble decrypting the file. Output mentions
On 2019-09-05 at 08:59 +0200, john doe wrote:
> On 9/4/2019 10:41 PM, Andre Klärner wrote:
> > I usually use my workstation to do everything, but since I can't access my
> > mailbox via NFS anymore (different story), I resorted to sshing into my
> > email server, and doing all the mailing needs
On 2019-08-18 at 08:24 +0200, Mihai Moldovan wrote:
> So, to summarize, if I process a keyring file generated by gpg 2.2
> with a 1.4 binary, i.e., read-in the former, export all keys and
> import it again, gpg 1.4 generates exactly the same file as it would
> when importing the keys directly.
On 2019-07-25 at 16:59 -0400, Kynn Jones via Gnupg-users wrote:
> In other words, I would love to use a single-purpose tool that is to
> AES256-encryption/decryption what, for example, gzip is to
> compression/decompression.
>
> Unfortunately, I have not been able to hit upon such a tool, which I
On 2019-07-20 at 20:07 +0200, Dr. Thomas Orgis wrote:
> The chain in the imported new key & cert file how it should be:
>
> 4. Thomas Orgis (me) signed by DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA
> 3. DFN-Verein Global Issuing CA signed by DFN-Verein Certification Authority 2
> 2. DFN-Verein Certification
On 2019-07-18 at 12:13 +1000, raf wrote:
> At work, when a client insists on email, and I (or the law)
> insist on encryption, I provide them with instructions for
> installing 7-zip and send them an AES-256 encrypted zip or 7z
> file as an attachment. It's the simplest thing I could think
> of
On 2019-07-09 at 15:55 -0500, Daniel Roesler via Gnupg-users wrote:
> While adding the ability for 0x50 signatures would be nice, I would
> still like to explore ways of users self-limiting signatures within
> the existing gpg command line, since most users will be just using
> whatever version is
On 2019-07-02 at 10:01 +0200, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote:
> > It is a real shame that a decentralized Hagrid isn't really
> >possible, though, at least to my understanding. It's quite the
> >limitation for GnuPG.
>
> Decentralized non-identity information hagrid could still be
> possible.
> It's
On 2019-07-02 at 12:24 +0200, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
> > My opinion: make "keyserver-options import-clean" the default and
> make it internally never import any unknown signatures.
>
> Sorry, this is a catch-22. We need the key to verify the signature.
I don't think so. You can have
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
