Hi
On Wednesday 30 May 2012 at 10:30:56 PM, in
mid:4fc69190.5000...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world
would you ever need a 1 in 6 penetration rate?
Whilst it would be *possible* for the various different departments
and
Hi
On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
mid:4fc2df08.4020...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
problem is command and control.
That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.
As a thought experiment, what
On 05/30/2012 04:14 PM, MFPA wrote:
That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.
And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world would you ever
need a 1 in 6 penetration rate? I'm sorry, but this is rapidly
descending down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theory -- where
MFPA wrote:
Hi
On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
mid:4fc2df08.4020...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
problem is command and control.
That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.
As a
On Wednesday 30 of May 2012 21:14:42 MFPA wrote:
Hi
On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
mid:4fc2df08.4020...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
problem is command and control.
That will always be a problem if the
On 22 May 2012 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From
what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key
length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults.
Use this patch to increase the
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Benjamin Donnachie
benja...@py-soft.co.uk wrote:
On 22 May 2012 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From
what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key
length and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Hi
On Tuesday 22 May 2012 at 6:10:05 PM, in
mid:4fbbc86d.30...@sixdemonbag.org, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Not even Nicolai Ceaucescu's Romania or Erich
Honecker's German Democratic Republic were able to get
one in six people to serve as
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 5/27/12 6:21 PM, MFPA wrote:
Planted informers numbering 1 in 6 of the protesters would still
be a statistically negligible percentage of the population at
large.
That's actually not the problem. The problem is that if 1 in 6 people
is a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 19:40, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
I think so, yes. The
On Tue, 22 May 2012 04:58:48 -0400
tim.kac...@gmail.com articulated:
{snip}
sarcasm
Interesting! I once worked for a secret government agency. We had a
working theory that anyone using encryption for other than normal
business operations was an obvious enemy of the state. I guess we must
have
On 5/22/12 8:12 AM, Jerry wrote:
Seriously, have you forgotten to take your meds today?
Let's not be mean.
I will be the absolute first person demanding the right to criticize
ideas as harshly as I want. I'll happily call an idea stupid,
ill-informed, wrong, or anything else. I do this with a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 13:12, Jerry wrote:
On Tue, 22 May 2012 04:58:48 -0400 tim.kac...@gmail.com articulated:
{snip}
sarcasm
Interesting! I once worked for a secret government agency. We had a working
theory that
anyone using encryption for other
On 5/22/12 4:58 AM, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I am involved in a local Occupy (bet you thought occupy was kaput eh?
well as it were known it is but that's another story) and frankly we
aren't just up against one intelligence agency, but all intel
agencies put together.
You might want to
Hi.
This pops up over and over again...
From a technical point of view that seems to be not only a intended
limitation,... at least it's not enough to change the max size in the
code,... there seem to be several buffers one would need to enlarge in
order to make bigger keys.
Personally I'd
On 22/05/12 15:39, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Nevertheless I guess it could even help to find awkward bugs or other
issues that may not appear with the moderate key sizes.
Or bugs only affecting large keys are not found because so few people use it,
and it becomes an attack vector
On Tue, 22 May 2012 10:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com said:
on my computers than break the keys, however they can't plant spyware on
everone's computer. without people noticing They do slurp up and
Are you sure? Did you looked at the GnuPG code so closely to come up
with such a strong statement?
On 5/22/12 11:50 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
There are a lot of ways to compromise a system, hidden backdoors in
other systems have already been revealed in the past.
It's worth bringing out Vint Cerf's estimate that between a sixth and a
quarter of all desktop PCs have been completely compromised
On Tue, 22 May 2012 09:23:36 -0400
Robert J. Hansen articulated:
On 5/22/12 8:12 AM, Jerry wrote:
Seriously, have you forgotten to take your meds today?
Let's not be mean.
I will be the absolute first person demanding the right to criticize
ideas as harshly as I want. I'll happily call an
On 5/22/12 12:28 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
under the control of botnet operators [1].
Whoops.
[1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6298641.stm
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
I apologize in advance if any of this sounds snarky. It's not intended
as such. Everything I've written here is sincere.
I am involved in a local Occupy (bet you thought occupy was kaput eh? well
as it were known it is but that's another story) and frankly we aren't
just up against one
On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 12:33:03 Jerry wrote:
What really amazed me though was that the OP wants
security and yet he uses GMail. GMail and security are
diametrically opposed concepts.
Since when the security of encryption is dependant on the
carrier/communication channel?
Did I miss some
On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 13:34:20 da...@gbenet.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years.
From what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable
On Tue, 2012-05-22 at 17:50 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote:
Or bugs only affecting large keys are not found because so few people use it,
and it becomes an attack vector affecting only those using large keys.
While this could happen, I'd guess it would be rather vice versa
And eventually larger
tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From
what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key
length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults.
[I think I write this same email on one list or another at
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 18:23, Hubert Kario wrote:
On Tuesday 22 of May 2012 13:34:20 da...@gbenet.com wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 09:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever
On 22/05/12 19:10, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Your claim may lead people to writing off your movement on the grounds
that one of two things are true. Either:
- They're a bunch of crazies who think that even the park
rangers are after them,
- Or, holy Toledo, even the park
On 22/05/12 20:00, da...@gbenet.com wrote:
On 22/05/12 18:23, Hubert Kario wrote: [...snip...]
David and Hubert, could you please trim the quotes in your replies? I'm typing
this with one hand because my scroll finger is cramping... ;) j/k
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in
Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
Hauke
--
PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 22/05/12 19:09, Peter Lebbing wrote:
chain sawed
Oh all right :) Ha! Ha!
David - no offence meant btw :) just so funny :)
- --
“See the sanity of the man! No gods, no angels, no demons, no body. Nothing of
the
kind.Stern, sane,every
On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect
Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants,
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging:
Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
Honestly now, do you think having a FAQ entry stops this topic
resurrecting every few
tim.kac...@gmail.com wrote:
I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From
what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key
length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults.
I have not been able to figure out how to get keylengths
On 5/22/12 3:10 PM, Avi wrote:
Didn't you already write a pretty good one one, Robert?
http://sixdemonbag.org/cryptofaq.xhtml
It's hubris for an author to refer to his own work. :) Also, that FAQ
is in desperate need of a rewrite. Nothing in it is wrong, per se, but
it needs a rewrite.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM, gnupg-users-requ...@gnupg.org wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Cc:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:07 -0400
Subject: Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:26 -0500
John Clizbe articulated:
All this and you're worried about overkill on the one place they WON'T
attack? No one attacks the crypto. They're are too many easier routes.
If you're /really/ worried about privacy and security, get your
priorities straightened out.
Am Di 22.05.2012, 14:46:03 schrieb Kevin Kammer:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging:
Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by
the participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
Honestly now, do you think having
On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:40, r...@sixdemonbag.org said:
I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect
Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants, I would be happy to take a
stab at writing it.
Please go ahead. Plain text optionally with org-mode formatting.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 22-05-2012 12:33, Jerry escribió:
...
that sort of logic. What really amazed me though was that the OP
wants security and yet he uses GMail. GMail and security are
diametrically opposed concepts.
Why? If I send an encrypted message, it
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 22-05-2012 8:34, da...@gbenet.com escribió:
...
Some say that all the power of the universe - and all the time its
been in existence will not crack a 2048 bit key with a secure
passphrase. So by the time the universe is well and
That is
On 5/22/12 9:41 PM, Faramir wrote:
[F]actoring your public key to obtain a working copy of your secret
key is certainly something that may be done before the end of time,
and won't require dyson spheres to power the machine.
I'm not so optimistic. Factoring is a hard problem. We may never
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 22-05-2012 4:58, tim.kac...@gmail.com escribió:
...
There are also estimates made that in the US 1 in 6 protestors is
actually a government agent of one sort or another, dept of
defense, homeland security, fbi what have you. And that exludes
42 matches
Mail list logo
