On 18.07.15 17:21, Philip Neukom wrote:
I put secure in quotes as they talk about a proprietary encryption
algorithm. As soon as I read proprietary, I have to roll my eyes as I
don't necessarily trust encryption if it isn't open for everyone to verify.
Pretty much.
Is this similar to what
On 19.07.15 20:22, Crissy Lynn wrote:
Please remove me from this mailing list.
Please follow the link at the bottom of each list email and follow
instructions.
--
Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing
On 18.07.15 07:38, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
On 07/18/2015 03:04 AM, Ville Määttä wrote:
$make -f build-aux/speedo.mk native INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local/gnupg
CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc-5 CXX=/usr/local/bin/g++-5
[...]
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
_gettext, referenced from:
I think
I'm getting a failure at speedo.mk build for 2.1.6 on OS X 10.10.4
Yosemite. I'm using a forced brewed GCC 5.2, that is:
$make -f build-aux/speedo.mk native INSTALL_PREFIX=/usr/local/gnupg
CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc-5 CXX=/usr/local/bin/g++-5
It's failing at gpg-agent. Just the short snippet below. I
On 27.04.15 12:43, MFPA wrote:
Right now, they're rolling out a payment system here in
The Netherlands where you only need to tap your bank
card to the payment terminal to do small payments.
That's all that is needed.
We have that in the UK already. Payments up to, I think, GBP20
without
On 25.03.15 22:32, Doug Barton wrote:
On 3/25/15 1:20 PM, Ville Määttä wrote:
On 25.03.15 21:41, Doug Barton wrote:
While this is strictly anecdotal evidence I would argue that it's a good
indication that we may not be ready for PGP/MIME as the default.
I think that fail, a signature.asc
On 26.03.15 18:17, Brian Minton wrote:
I think gmail is the single most popular email client, with 500 million
users.
There are about 7,3 billion people out there that don't have a clue what
OpenPGP is.
I think that until there is a way to verify pgp signatures from
within gmail,
On 26.03.15 01:38, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
On 25/03/15 23:56, Ville Määttä wrote:
On 26.03.15 00:14, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
So it's not mailman that's not smart enough, but the mail clients
the other recipients are using. Mail clients showing a
signature.asc attachment probably do
On 25.03.15 21:41, Doug Barton wrote:
While this is strictly anecdotal evidence I would argue that it's a good
indication that we may not be ready for PGP/MIME as the default.
I think that fail, a signature.asc attachment, is still a cleaner fail
than a non-PGP receiver getting a breakdown from
On 25.03.15 21:42, Doug Barton wrote:
Doug
--
I am conducting an experiment in the efficacy of PGP/MIME signatures.
This message should be signed. If it is not, or the signature does not
validate, please let me know how you received this message (direct, or
to a list) and the mail
On 26.03.15 00:14, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
So it's not mailman that's not smart enough, but the mail clients the other
recipients are using. Mail clients showing a signature.asc attachment
probably do not understand PGP/MIME (which isn't that unusual because only a
handful mail clients support
On 13.03.15 15:04, Mark H. Wood wrote:
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 05:55:53AM -0300, Hugo Osvaldo Barrera wrote:
On 2015-03-13 08:21, Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 13 Mar 2015 00:21, h...@barrera.io said:
No need for a wildcard one. Just get one free certificate for each
subdomain
On 13.03.15 15:27, Werner Koch wrote:
The more expensive CAs are only selling you a fashionable background
color for your the client's address bar.
Essentially, that's it :).
There are however clearly defined hard requirements to the Extended
Validation, aka green bar level. That is, more
On 12.03.15 20:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
My point was that you wrote multiple paragraphs worth of stories on
two emails from which I really got the impression that people should
just not bother.
In response to someone who was thinking that storing keys on your hard
drive was
On 12.03.15 19:21, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If you think I'm portraying them as completely unusable, then I think
you didn't bother to read my message very closely.
I read both of your messages quite closely. Had you merely pointed out
the downsides of having to carry a card, a reader etc. I
On 10.03.15 04:41, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
So this is not a question about portable flash drives vs. smartcards per
se. I _think_ I understand those risks and trade-offs but if there is
something I'm missing then, of course, I'd like to know.
I had an experience that one of my family members
On 04.03.15 01:55, Hans of Guardian wrote:
In Android, you can't really have shared libraries. Apps share functionality
at a higher level (aka Activities and Services).
Qt applications can share Qt libraries [1] with an external dependency
called Ministro [2].
[1]:
On 04.03.15 18:21, Bjarni Runar Einarsson wrote:
GPGME proponents will be frustrated to hear that this knowledge actually
makes me feel much better about Mailpile's decision to wrap gpg
directly: it means I've removed two layers of abstraction between my
code and gpg! Win! Although supposedly
On 04.03.15 12:48, Werner Koch wrote:
that doesn't tell you about proprietary projects that have chosen not to
use GPGME. I've had clients refuse to use GPGME because of the
licensing, even under the LGPLv2.1. (Foolish, I know.) Other times
And I have had several hints that it was used
On 03.03.15 14:54, Stephan Beck wrote:
as your message hasn't reached the list inspite of being addressed to it
It did :).
--
Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On 21 Feb 2015, at 15:55, Xavier Maillard xav...@maillard.im wrote:
Hi Ville,
Ville Määttä mailing-li...@asatiifm.net writes:
I happen to use Mail so for a long time I’ve been using the GPGMail
plugin with a brewed[2] upstream GnuPG. I.e. *just one of the
things in the GPG Suite*. I’ve
On 20.02.15 12:42, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Might I suggest that you start with pinentry?
Agreed.
It would be really helpful if you could instead create a new subdirectory
cocoa and do it like the other pinentries.
Oh yes, definitely agreed. Integrate the necessary changes to the
upstream
On 20.02.15 11:29, Lukas Pitschl wrote:
It would be great if there’s an outline of the changes which might break
backwards compatibility (if any).
From usage point of view: https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html
The things that would require a little changing are the launchd
templates
On 20.02.15 11:36, Lukas Pitschl wrote:
No pinentry, nothing just happens. /Will need to
troubleshoot this further on 2.1.2 to try to find out more./
We’ve noticed that the hang occurs in pcsc_get_status_change. Instead of
receiving a timeout, it simply hangs forever, due to a bug in
On 20.02.15 16:44, Lukas Pitschl wrote:
Pinentry-mac is one project we’ve „revived“ and thus only added stuff on top
of the old code instead of refactoring it.
We’ve been planning to do that for a long time now though, so we’ll
definitely look into that and check out how other UIs do it,
On 20.02.15 15:27, NdK wrote:
5 - possibility to export private keys to user-certified devices
That pretty much defeats the point of using a smart card in the first
place.
That's not uncontrolled export, and in fact…
…(snip)…
while importing a key (so that you can't alter -actually
it's
On 18.02.15 13:05, Jonathan Schleifer wrote:
Upstream still does have the issue which now seems to have been fixed in
the fork but in a binary removed from upstream…
I really can not confirm this. I am running vanilla GnuPG 2.1.2 (built from
source) on Yosemite (10.10.2 to be exact) with a
On 18.02.15 07:21, Werner Koch wrote:
command line tools. *I think there is no more reason to develop
MacGPG*, i.e. a port, anymore. Let the port die.
Can you briefly explain how Patrick's new installer [1] is related to that?
Would it be an option to use that as the core for gpgtools?
On 17.02.15 23:32, Lukas Pitschl wrote:
The best way to reach us is either our support platform at
https://gpgtools.tenderapp.com or t...@gpgtools.org.
Ok, that link explains the certificate and it makes more sense. I can
see you've already changed at least the first link to the support site
On 18.02.15 07:21, Werner Koch wrote:
wrappers or fixes upstream. Case in point: Has the fix for gpg-agent /
scdaemon hang been discussed upstream at all [4], [5]? In MacGPG there
is still ../libexec/gnupg-pcsc-wrapper which has been modified in
commit f4c3e1bb to fix the issues of scdaemon
On 19.02.15 21:18, Ville Määttä wrote:
Surely someone from the KDE / larger community
using pinentry-qt4 has been working on a QT 5 version of pinentry?
Ok, found it :). Issue #1806 [1].
[1]: https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1806
--
Ville
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital
On 18 Feb 2015, at 21:13, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:
I'm not convinced that it's gnupg's job to compensate for
unreasonably-configured IPv6 stacks that think they have a route but
actually don’t.
I agree. I think the actual problem should be addressed at the
On 18 Feb 2015, at 19:07, Johan Wevers joh...@vulcan.xs4all.nl wrote:
Admit it, IPv6 has
failed. It may get some uses, but the widespread adaptation of carrier
NAT has made it largely obsolete.
Utter, complete, nonsense.
--
Ville
___
I’ve had some concerns about GPGTools for months now. For some time I've
disliked the way the project is being run, the communication of what they are
planning and the way they have been doing their development for example. Months
went by when their Yosemite betas were not available in source
On 17 Feb 2015, at 18:31, Martin Paljak mar...@martinpaljak.net wrote:
Not sure about overall GnuPG affection with Apple or other closed
source software, but the PC/SC layer in Yosemite is broken (again):
On 17 Feb 2015, at 21:16, Juergen Fenn schneeschme...@googlemail.com wrote:
as you've pointed
out, the GPGTools have decided to go all commercial including, I
didn't realise this before, a closed code repository so that no one
can study the code? Is this true? I can't believe it.
That’s
On 17 Feb 2015, at 21:03, Sandeep Murthy s.mur...@mykolab.com wrote:
As a user, not a developer on MacGPG, the issues previously
raised here about the remote execution of scripts etc. may be
questionable, but they do not directly affect my use of the software,
which is nothing but a front
On 13 Feb 2015, at 08:25, Christopher W. Richardson c...@cwrichardson.com
wrote:
FWIW, Mac Mail marked this message as spam. Not sure if it universally does
that for all inline sigs, but ... FYI.
Chris
Fortunately it certainly does not.
--
Ville
signature.asc
Description: Message
UX-designer-aproach to car design:
We need to remove break and clutch pedals from cars because our user studies
say that a 3 pedal interface for driving an automobile is just way too
difficult.
I say those who can’t be arsed to learn how, do not deserve a driver’s license.
You let a child
No worries on my part.
it seems to install software in versioned directories.
Exactly, under /usr/local… and without messing with the system installed
binaries or libraries. Some things, like openssl libraries, it will not link
automatically to avoid some issues with system provided
Hi,
I can’t use speedo.mk as I get GnuPG has already been build[sic] in-source”.
I’m not going to replace 2.0 at this time so I won’t remove it. With just
‘make’ I get an error on linking libgpg-error. I happen to have versions 0.16
and 0.17 but not 0.13 under the referenced path.
[shell
/gnupg-2.1.0/PLAY/stamps/stamp-gnupg-02-make] Error 2
make: *** [native] Error 2
On 6 Nov 2014, at 16:14, Ville Määttä mailing-li...@asatiifm.net wrote:
[shell quote]
gcc -I/usr/local/Cellar/libgcrypt/1.6.2/include
-I/usr/local/Cellar/libgpg-error/1.13/include
-I/usr/local/Cellar/libassuan
Yeah, OS X. I’m sorry, I’m sure this is drowning to all the discussion on this
thread, I didn’t think too much about the subject. I was replying to Nicholas’
reported issues with building on OS X. My aim was to expand on Nicholas’ report
with the info that it’s failing with that error yes, but
://brew.sh
[2] https://www.macports.org
[3] https://gpgtools.org
[4] http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2014-August/050677.html
--
Ville Määttä
On 01 Sep 2014, at 21:33, Travis Millburn travis.millb...@gmail.com wrote:
I’m running into problems compiling GnuPG on my mac running OS X
I bought my SCR3500 and SCR335 V2 from Identive / Chipdrive [1]. I had a
problem adding VAT number to the order myself but at least they ship (and
kindly handled fixing the bill afterwards). Though, they only seem to have an
SCT3511 there, not a 3512.
[1] http://www.chipdrive.de
--
Ville
You'll need to import the other person’s public key as that is what you are
encrypting to.
If the other person has uploaded their key to a key server you should be able
to find it there:
gpg --search-key recipi...@example.com
If you already know, preferably the long form, key ID you can just
Maybe a little off topic, but then again we are talking about keeping gnupg up
to date.
TL;DR: I think either MacPorts or Homebrew can be used and one or the other is
quite necessary. I do most of my work on the command line / Vim, etc. and using
either is just as convenient as apt-get / yum
I’d actually like to know why the pinentry / pinentry-curses that come from
homebrew don’t seem to work at all. I am now using pinentry-mac but I wouldn’t
mind getting the normal pinentry working. All I get is Agent admitted failure
to sign using the key.” without any PIN queries. I can see the
Quite. Who are the Mac guys and what did they fork?
--
Ville
On 19.8.2014, at 12.14, Nicholas Cole nicholas.c...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 6:54 PM, Richard Outerbridge ou...@interlog.com
wrote:
Still waiting for my email address, yet my blackphone is already in
my hands.
Yeah. Ok. Assuming the Mac guys / fork referred to here are GPGTools / MacGPG2
I can see a couple bigger issues there than just patching in support for bigger
keys.
1. The package and gnupg2 version used has not been updated since October 2013
(2013.10.22). If I’m not completely mistaken the
-info
export GPG_AGENT_INFO
export SSH_AUTH_SOCK
export SSH_AGENT_PID
fi
[4] END
--
Ville
On 19 Aug 2014, at 22:33, Doug Barton do...@dougbarton.us wrote:
On 8/19/14 11:17 AM, Ville Määttä wrote:
1. The package and gnupg2 version used has not been updated since October
2013
I'm using the FSFE card [1] with SCR3500 [2]. Ok yeah sure, that’s a fellowship
card but I actually also wanted to point out the SCR3500 which is a nice
similar form factor option for a reader.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbaxi8ulfdz5585/fsfe_with_scr3500.jpg
[1]
So, when was the last time you were offered a parachute on flight? :), sorry I
just had to.
I have to say I agree with Doug on StartSSL, I think they’re doing a more of a
service to the community by offering affordable certs and the revocation fee is
understandable. And reasonable. And
-the-gpgme-library-from-net
--
Ville Määttä
On 25 Apr 2014, at 01:07, Charles Spitzer cspit...@godaddy.com wrote:
Greetings
Is there a GnuPGP project anywhere that does PGP encryption that is usable in
a C# application? I know I can execute commands at a command line to do
54 matches
Mail list logo
