Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but the
maintainer contact email listed in the Privacy Handbook is dead, the doc
mailing list has a last post in 2008, and it doesn't seem like it
belongs on the developer list. So...
There's no mention of --refresh-keys usage on
Hey, I'm not sure if this is the right place to talk about this, but the
maintainer contact email listed in the Privacy Handbook is dead, the doc
mailing list has a last post in 2008, and it doesn't seem like it
belongs on the developer list. So...
There's no mention of --refresh-keys usage on
On 2/23/2010 2:34 PM, Carlos Chavez wrote:
I am having trouble figuring out how to send a gpg signed email
from PHP. I can generate the message, sign it with a detached signature
and then include the signature in the message. The problem is that my
mail program (Evolution on Linux)
On 2/23/2010 10:06 PM, Carlos Chavez wrote:
I am trying to emulate the way Evolution creates the email so the
message will look fine in clients that do not support GPG directly, that
is a requirement. I have tried to create the complete message by
manually using all the headers I find
On 2/26/2010 12:38 PM, MFPA wrote:
I am *not* advocating the implementation of any form of
Digital Restrictions Malware (DRM).
Uploading a somebody else's key without first checking it is OK by
them is a breach of their privacy and could well be illegal/unlawful
in jurisdictions with data
Alas, while GnuPG supports the flag, no keyserver does.
David
Just curious... Does support just mean it sets the bit? Or will it turn
an attempt to --send-keys on that key into a no-op?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On 2/27/2010 5:50 AM, Martin Bretschneider wrote:
that was my expectation as well. But what do the email clients do then?
Do they say no key available or do the look for the name? What are
your experiences?
TIA Martin
Enigmail will lookup the key by key ID (0xDEADBEEF) when you tell it
Doh! Originally sent off list... Maybe Robert got a psychic vibe...
On 2/27/2010 2:21 PM, MFPA wrote:
I don't want such a vote. Whether somebody chooses to include an email
address in their UID is up to the individual. I have not seen anything
that convinces me it is better for me to
That isn't how the web of trust works. Well, it *can* work that way
for you, since you can choose who to trust and who not to, but that's
not the information encoded in there. I know dozens of people on the
net. I've exchanged encrypted mail with them, I've worked with them, in
some case
Can anyone post the URL for Philip?
David
http://fortytwo.ch/gpg/subkeys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 3/2/2010 5:31 PM, 20 Ton Squirrel wrote:
The Setup
I run Windows XP using GnuPG version 1.4.10.
A client and I have exchanged our keys. I successfully imported his key and
attempted to encrypt a file to send him. My command line is as follows:
gpg --passphrase mypassphrase
On 3/3/2010 5:26 PM, Sean Rima wrote:
Folks
I downloaded and installed gpg4win-2.0.2rc1. I then tested my pka setup
using:
echo foo | gpg2 --no-default-keyring --keyring c:\temp\gpg --encrypt
--armor --auto-key-locate pka -r s...@srima.eu -v 2 test.txt
...
The only thing I can
On 3/4/2010 8:18 AM, erythrocyte wrote:
And then:
gpg --check-trustdb
And here's the output of the last command:
gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, PGP trust model
gpg: depth: 0 valid: 1 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 1u
gpg: next
On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I'm also not sure what the signed: 128 suggests in the depth: 1
line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
issued more than 128 certifications themselves. maybe someone else can
explain that bit?
I believe that's
On 3/4/2010 3:52 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 03/04/2010 01:01 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
On 3/4/2010 12:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I'm also not sure what the signed: 128 suggests in the depth: 1
line. Surely of all 83 keys i've certified, they have collectively
issued more than 128
On 3/5/2010 4:30 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
http://jessekornblum.livejournal.com/259124.html
For quite some time we've known that hibernation files present risks for
information security. However, there are always those who say until I
see an actual demonstration, I won't believe it.
On 03/05/2010 05:18 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 3/5/10 5:04 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
That article was a little vague. And I don't know much about memory
forensics in practice. Do you know that it actually was a hibernation
file and not swap space?
Note Jesse's phrasing: volatile memory
On 3/6/2010 2:02 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Thanks a million for all this. The company Volatile Systems was
really messing with my google-fu.
Err -- why?
Volatile Systems is behind the Volatility framework, which is probably
the best FOSS tool going right now for Windows memory
On 3/11/2010 7:52 AM, nagaram.c wrote:
Hi,
I am new to gpg command line utility for file encryption/decryption. I
have installed gpg4win v 2.0.2 trying to encrypt a file with a key
that I imported which is also listing while typing list-keys command
The issue is that I am
On 3/10/2010 4:07 PM, Robert Palmer wrote:
During exchange of a public key to a 3^rd party – they rejected the key
for not having a compatible cipher; so, after doing some research the
key was edited within gpg to update prefs on the key which now shows a
compatible cipher (in this case,
On 3/12/2010 5:27 AM, Matt Burkhardt wrote:
Here's the code that calls gpg for the encryption:
gpg --batch --no-secmem-warning --disable-mdc --symmetric --cipher-algo
AES256 --passphrase-fd 3 3/var/lib/amanda/.am_passphrase
According to the man pages, it says not to use the
On 3/12/2010 8:19 AM, nagaram.c wrote:
I figured out the issue
Need to sign the key after it is imported.
Nag
You shouldn't need to sign the key. It should give you a warning but
let you encrypt it anyway:
It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named
in the user ID.
On 3/11/2010 12:36 AM, clayton.a.eg...@jci.com wrote:
I misplaced my PINENTRY passphrase. Is there some way to recover it or
will I need to remove GNU and start anew? I need to decrypt a document
from a vendor that has my public key. This is what I'm looking at:
Unfortunately, you're
On 3/12/2010 6:31 PM, Faramir wrote:
Just a question, and I don't have any intention about doing it, but,
is there a way to disable the usage of 3DES in GnuPG, when encrypting?
Best Regards
Doing that wouldn't comply with the spec. The spec says that
implementations MUST support 3DES:
A while ago I stumbled onto instructions to up my prefs to use a better
hash than SHA1:
http://www.debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/48
Today I was surfing around, and saw some relatively recent posts on the
list that said setting digest-algo in gpg.conf was a Bad Idea(tm). I
didn't
On 3/18/2010 7:50 AM, Daniel Eggleston wrote:
..., with the ultimate goal
that if somebody does somehow walk out with the storage containing the
databases, there will be no way to gain access to the data.
Physically walk out? You could use some full disk encryption instead.
And a lock on the
On 3/18/2010 11:59 AM, Daniel Eggleston wrote:
Full-disk encryption still requires that the DBA enter a
passphrase at the time of mounting the disks and doesn't solve anything
(and is less cross-platform, there may be many different flavors of Unix
including HP-UX, AIX, and Linux); and
On 3/18/2010 2:43 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
On 3/18/2010 11:59 AM, Daniel Eggleston wrote:
Not sure exactly what sort of database you're using, but gpg (to my
knowledge) doesn't do block-level/random access. You can't just mount
the database, stop using pgp, and write a block here and a block
On 3/19/2010 1:17 PM, M.B.Jr. wrote:
The encryption key for the databases is stored on-disk, encrypted with PGP
(Gnupg specifically).
Sort of a conceptual remark at this point.
See, this database password you refer to is a symmetrical one. And you
stated you keep it on-disk, encrypted
On 3/19/2010 3:32 PM, James Moe wrote:
Tbird v3.0.3, gnupg v2.0.12, enigmail v1.0.1
I have started gpg-agent, have exported the variables from
.gpg-agent.info. Yet every time I save enigmail's preferences I get
the message ...to change passphrase caching options, please configure
your
On 3/19/2010 7:09 PM, James Moe wrote:
On 03/19/2010 02:30 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
Tbird v3.0.3, gnupg v2.0.12, enigmail v1.0.1
I have started gpg-agent, have exported the variables from
.gpg-agent.info. Yet every time I save enigmail's preferences I get
the message ...to change passphrase
On 3/20/2010 11:22 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Yes, that's a consideration, however in 5 years we'll have had at least
2 iterations of Moore's Law, and in my experience so far I do much more
signing than I do encryption.
Thanks for the review. :)
Doug
I stumbled on this wikipedia page a
On 3/29/2010 1:16 AM, Kannan, Aarthi [Tech] wrote:
I do have a backup. When I run on a particular directory, the secret key gets
listed. I had to cvs it to the server and then I try listing secret keys on
the server folder - it fails with the invalid packet error message!
I see the file
On 04/05/2010 08:20 PM, Brian Mearns wrote:
Sorry for such a simple question, but I can't find a simple answer. My
signing and encryption subkeys have expired, so do I just create new
subkeys, and upload to the SKS servers? Do I have to delete the
subkeys, or revoke them?
Thanks,
-Brian
On 4/7/2010 12:23 PM, Seidl, Scott wrote:
No, I haven't done that. What is the command for doing that (I assume cksum
will work)?
That's a CRC checksum. It's probably good enough for what you're doing,
but 'md5sum' would calculate the md5.
Also, assuming the checksums match, what would
On 4/7/2010 3:18 AM, Andre Amorim wrote:
What type of encryption the WikiLeaks said to have broken? AES ?
Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/07wikileaks.html
ps. I thought it was april fool.
http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1610792cid=31765168
According to the above
On 4/13/2010 4:06 PM, Bill House wrote:
I created a new RSA/RSA 2048 key in my keyring. So long as I only want
to encrypt, it works fine. When I want to encrypt AND sign, it
complains that I need the IDEA algorithm. When I specify the
cipher-algo, it either claims the cipher is invalid,
On 5/11/2010 8:08 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 05/11/2010 07:42 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
The encrypt-to-all-encryption-capable-subkeys ensures that the owner of the
primary key will always be able to decrypt the message no matter what (not-
revoke) encryption key secrets he can access at
On 5/24/2010 6:04 PM, raviraj kondraguntla wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to install the gnupg 1.4.10 on solaris 10 server, I have
received the below error
Can you use sunfreeware? I believe they have binaries available for
install. I'm not running solaris now, so I can't tell you how well they
On 5/26/10 10:14 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
I would like to use gpg to create encrypted directories
on an external hard drive. I would like to do this for
both WinXP and for Linux. Could someone direct me to
appropriate documentation?
Thanks,
Mike.
If you're talking about a 'live'
On 5/27/10 10:03 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:42:00 -0400, Grant Olson wrote:
[...]
If you're talking about a static directory, just zip it up and encrypt
normally.
[...]
I tried to zip a 90G directory tree, but it failed on a bad file
name -- something
On 6/22/10 9:22 PM, VH Dolcourt wrote:
This is a Windows 7 question:
I was able to mouse around in Google and found out how to modify the proper
PATH environment variable. Therefore, at the command prompt I'm able to
execute gpg without having to migrate to the directory where gpg
On 6/27/10 4:27 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
How difficult would it be to propose some kind of extension flag to
the PGP key format that in essence says don't publish me to a
On 6/27/10 9:23 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
At the moment, it doesn't. That would need to be addressed if you
want keyservers to be able to reject a no-ks-modify key. One way to
do it is to only accept key updates that are signed by the key
On 7/22/10 6:13 PM, Malte Gell wrote:
Hi there!
I have the following setup: a Linux luks encrypted partition. It is encrypted
with a keyfile, the keyfile itself is GnuPG encrypted and stored in /root
...
When I use these commands after booting, they do what I want them to do.
On 7/23/10 2:52 AM, Malte Gell wrote:
Yes and the boot partition is not encrypted, only /home But I solved it.
Regards
Malte
Just keep in mind that if you're not encrypting the whole disk, your
sensitive data can leak to /tmp and swap. I'm only bringing this up
because it seems like
On 8/25/10 12:58 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On balance, i think we should probably start considering adding crypto
to keyservers, with the knowledge of these particular constraints. But
it's not there yet.
As always, i'd be happy to hear other people's perspectives on this stuff.
On 8/25/10 5:49 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 08/25/2010 03:28 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
(1) Verifying that the keydata hasn't been tampered with, like editing
in a hex editor?
this isn't very meaningful -- data is data, and you can't actually tell
if it's been touched by a hex editor
On 8/25/10 10:02 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
i think you mean only add *non-self-sigs* that have a Third Party
Confirmation from the original keyholder.
Yes, of course.
Would wide adoption of this kind of confirmation create another angle
that people could use to force signatures on a
I just got my new crypto-stick, and it's pretty slick. I understand why
I'd want to set my name and language preferences, but I was trying to
come up with a good scenario where my sex would be useful, or what the
rational was for including that field.
I'm just curious more than anything.
--
I can find docs on generating a key on a smart card, and migrating an
existing key to the smart card. But I can't figure out how to configure
the smart card on a clean machine that never had my secret keys.
The card has both signing and encryption keys on it. The drivers are
installed. I'm
On 8/31/10 10:56 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 8/31/2010 6:34 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
| I can find docs on generating a key on a smart card, and migrating an
| existing key to the smart card. But I can't figure out how to configure
| the smart card on a clean machine that never had my secret keys
On 9/1/10 12:39 AM, David Shaw wrote:
Do you have the public key corresponding to the card key on that box? You
need the public key plus a run of --card-status to generate the stubs.
That did the trick. As did John's suggestion to run fetch from 'gpg
--card-edit' I'm assuming 'fetch'
On 9/1/10 5:17 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
I just got my new crypto-stick, and it's pretty slick. I understand why
I'd want to set my name and language preferences, but I was trying to
come up with a good scenario where my sex would be useful, or what the
rational was for including that field.
I'm on OSX Snow Leopord, the latest version of MacGPG2.
When I remove my cryptostick and plug it back in, scdaemon doesn't see
it anymore. This causes gpg-agent to complain that it can't find a
smart-card. If I manually lookup the PID for scdaemon and give it a
kill -9 things work again.
I
I'm using gpg-agent instead of ssh-agent on OS X with a smart card.
When I didn't have the card plugged in, it was falling back to the file
~/.ssh/id_rsa, which seemed reasonable, even though I didn't want to use
the old key.
When I moved the file, gpg-agent still seems to see it some how.
It
On 9/14/10 5:06 PM, Alex Mauer wrote:
On 09/14/2010 03:34 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
Did gpg-agent stash a copy of the private key? How do I delete that
copy?
I believe it’s one of the files in ~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/ — at
least, that’s where it is in Linux.
Thanks, that did the trick
On 9/24/10 4:29 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
My conclusion from the above data points is that if we're concerned
about computational inefficiencies, 4096-bit RSA keys are not
particularly bad offenders.
Are there other interpretations of the above results? does anyone else
want to post
On 9/25/10 5:33 PM, Allen Schultz wrote:
One of you previously gave me a link last year for advanced sub-key
management where I was using a master key to create limited yearly
expired sub-keys, just in case they were compromised. I cant seem to
find it on Google searches. I have tried any
On 9/29/10 12:02 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 09/24/2010 05:23 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
I can test on a Motorola i1 (Boost' droid) with APG, but I'll only be
able to do a stopwatch test. As far as I'm concerned, under one sec is
good.
i'd be interested in seeing the results, even
On 10/3/2010 5:25 PM, Alphazo wrote:
gHowever for some reasons it
breaks when Crypto Stick is removed then inserted back. I no longer have
access to the card. I have to kill scdaemon in order to get access to the
card again.
This is apparently a known issue:
On 10/5/10 6:13 PM, Thomas Chitwood wrote:
Robert,
This is a error that is preventing us from encrypting. The key has been
trusted and signed.
pub 2048R/F56DBCBE created: 2010-09-28 expires: never usage: SC
trust: full validity: unknown
sub
On 10/13/10 11:51 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
From a different perspective, i could run the agent itself in a
constrained account, and replace the prompting tool with a tool that
requires, say, an ACPI event, or a special keypress (not an X11 event)
from a designated hardware button. in
On 10/15/10 5:04 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
But is it good? To me this feature seems like security theater. It
makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and lets you sleep at night, but
doesn't provide any real protection.
Is it good to have users
On 12/6/10 2:21 PM, Marcio B. Jr. wrote:
Hello,
sorry for this insistence. I just want to get it clearly.
So, you mean those devices certainly protect information better than a
regular computer (even if making proper use of disk encryption
software)?
Yes. Ultimately a malicious user
On 12/9/10 8:41 AM, Hauke Laging wrote:
Am Donnerstag 09 Dezember 2010 07:14:53 schrieb Ben McGinnes:
Hello,
I am giving very serious thought to creating new keys and
doing a (long-term) transition to them. This is partly to respond to
known flaws with SHA-1 and take advantage of
On 12/11/10 2:55 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
Cool. On a tangential note, could this be used as a basis for
applying a PKI/WoT model to certification of SSL keys, rather than
relying on CAs?
I don't really want to hijack my own thread, but I've always been
deeply suspicious of the obvious
It's also a good time to take care of all those administrative tasks
that you've been lazy about.
I created an authentication subkey this year and never properly backed
it up. Sure I could revoke it and create a new one, but getting the new
key onto a bunch of servers will be a pain.
Also put
On 1/2/2011 11:04 AM, takethe...@gmx.de wrote:
And thankfully David Shaw answerd:
By default, yes. You can override this,
but it is not a good idea.
Thus the answer to the question, whether one needs to check whether the key
is self-signed is conneced with the word override. What did
to
validate the person himself.
But anyway, I'd be reluctant to sign a key that said something like
Grant Olson (Nightwatch Division) t...@fbi.gov if I knew this person
had no affiliation with the FBI, or didn't know that he did, whether or
not I thought the owner of the key could exploit the bogus
I'm assuming this just needs the year end bump. Looks like it expired
12-31-2010.
-Grant
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Hey all,
I've been using a smartcard for several months now. It's a cryptostick
if the model is important. Every time I sign something, it asks me for
my pin. But once the card is unlocked, ssh authentication and
decryption seem to happen forever, regardless of any ttl-cache settings
in
On 1/25/11 10:07 AM, Patryk Cisek wrote:
Hi,
I've been successfully using OpenPGP smartcard for signing my Debian
uploads for a while now. Today I wanted to set it up also for SSH
public key authentication.
Did you create an authentication key? You might only have signing and
encryption
On 1/25/11 12:16 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
I just setup Debian 6.0RC1 last week. I have a key I've already been
using to ssh. I had no problems. Just needed to add some stuff to
.bashrc as documented in the manpage for gpg-agent.
Actually, I also needed to run 'gpgkey2ssh 0xDEADBEEF
~/.ssh
On 01/25/2011 07:59 PM, Joseph Ziff wrote:
Just out of curiosity (this might be the wrong mailing list for this so
I apologize in advance if that is the case), are there any plans for
implementing any other encryption/signing algorithms in GPG and if so
what are they?
I think it's really the
On 1/26/11 3:37 PM, Avi wrote:
As someone who uses GnuPG on a USB stick under Windows, I sincerely hope
that elliptical curves get added to the 1.4 trunk.
--Avi
That was completely uninformed speculation on my part.
But I still think that like any new standard and technology, even
On 1/26/11 4:03 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
Anyone in the US ever order the OpenPGP smartcards from Kernel
Concepts? I'm wondering if there are any customs issues I should be
aware of. I'm thinking of trying to get a few people together around
here to do a bulk order to cut shipping costs,
On 01/28/2011 09:42 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
While I realize that the ID-1 (full size) cards can be used with card
readers that support PIN entry, are there any other
advantages/disadvantages to one size over the other? At present, I feel
like the ID-000 form factor has more advantages
This is actually a spare card I was just messing around with, not my
main one. It's a standard OpenPGP v2.0 card from g10.
I wanted to reset the card to the factory defaults and mess around with
the onboard key generation. I issued the series of commands listed
here, among other places:
On 01/30/2011 06:03 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2011 19:54, k...@grant-olson.net said:
gpg: detected reader `SCM SCR 3310 [CCID Interface] 00 00'
gpg: pcsc_connect failed: sharing violation (0x801b)
Another process has locked the reader. Most likely this is either a gpg
1
On 01/30/2011 11:18 AM, Grant Olson wrote:
With those options enabled, I tried issuing the reset codes. First time
it complained because no card was inserted. Second time it complained
because it couldn't find a supported application on the card. I'm not
sure if that message is normal
On 02/04/2011 05:49 PM, Justin Teaw wrote:
Does anyone have a solution for this problem? Do you know what socket
the gpg-agent is using?
What OS? What version of gnupg? What commands are you trying to run?
How are you trying to run them: batch file, command line, program like
enigmail,
On 2/7/11 2:59 AM, Kraus, Daniel wrote:
I try to give a résumé:
I exported my whole keyring (all public and private keys) from the old
version and imported it into my new version apperently succesfull.
I'm able to encrypt a file with the public key of one of our partners
and they are able
On 2/9/11 3:00 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
gpg --check-sigs produces information about whether a certification was
revoked, but not whether the certification was made by a key which
itself was revoked.
The man page does say that this is intentionally not done for
performance reasons:
In both the product description for the OpenPGP V2.0 card and the spec
itself there is some discussion of a Cardholder Certificate Data
Object in the V2.0 cards.
I've got one of those free X.509 email certificate from Comodo, and was
attempting to upload it to the card. I can import the .p12
On 2/15/11 8:38 AM, AgoristTeen1994 wrote:
Okay thanks for the help though I'm still somewhat confused...I understand
that they key id is the entire keypair, but then how do I found out what is
just my public key, and just my secret key, the reason Im asking is that if
I want to give my
On 02/26/2011 07:45 PM, Todd A. Jacobs wrote:
I have an SCR3310 card reader on an Ubuntu 10.10 system, and installed
the drivers through the libccid package. This works out of the box for
root, but mortal users can't access the card at all. I tried a lightly
modified version of the scripts
On 02/26/2011 09:40 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
I've recently received my smart card, but was wondering what the best
practices are, mainly from a physical standpoint. When I use it in
my laptop reader, it sticks about 2 out of the side, and I have some
concern about this (i.e., getting
On 02/26/2011 08:52 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
I have a 3310 and with pcscd, I haven't even found the need to use the
scard group. I have found that occasionally I have to restart
scdaemon in order to get new readers/cards recognized. I haven't
narrowed it down specifically yet. (I just
On 02/26/2011 11:51 PM, Brady Young wrote:
Thought I would update and say I finally got this working correctly.
Apparently with the Omnikey Cardman 3121, the vendor drivers *must* be
used. Once those were installed, and daemons restarted, ssh-add -l had
no problem grabbing the key off the
On 02/27/2011 11:40 AM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Sun, 27 Feb 2011 06:43, br...@frogandbear.net said:
I do find it a little odd that GnuPG's very own (and from the looks of
it, old) documentation (1) lists the 3121 as a supported reader, along
with several other outdated models.
Sorry for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 02/27/2011 02:37 PM, Martin Gollowitzer wrote:
* Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org [110227 20:28]:
How about inline confuses users who don't know anything about OpenPGP?
1. Why are you sending them signed emails anyway?
I sign *all*
Provider: Boost
Manufacturer: Motorola
Model: I1
Droid version: 1.5
This phone has two mail applications by default, one called 'email' and
another called 'gmail'. Both displayed PGP/MIME messages without any
trouble. Neither verified sigs of course.
I see no easy way to determine the version
On 02/27/2011 10:22 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 28/02/11 2:02 PM, David Shaw wrote:
I'm not at all surprised that you had those results. A limited
subset of people have support for OpenPGP signatures. A limited
subset of those people actually verify signatures. A limited subset
of those
On 02/27/2011 11:29 PM, David Shaw wrote:
Not exactly Android, but FWIW, an iPod touch (which has the same mail program
as an iPhone) displays PGP/MIME just fine (as in shows the mail - but doesn't
verify the signature).
David
It's worth a lot.
Since the rational behind this thread
On 02/27/2011 11:48 PM, Ben McGinnes wrote:
On 28/02/11 2:59 PM, Grant Olson wrote:
I've been toying with the idea of expiring my key and seeing how
long it takes for anyone to notice. In fact, I've just decided I
will do this sometime in the next year. It'll be interesting to see
how long
On 2/28/11 2:07 AM, Denise Schmid wrote:
It depends on what you mean by a shared key. There is just giving a
copy of the key to multiple people (in which case any one of them can use
it),
or there are various key splitting algorithms where a key is broken into a
number of pieces, and a
On 2/28/11 12:42 PM, Benjamin Donnachie wrote:
On 28 Feb 2011, at 17:29, florent ainardi fainard...@gmail.com
mailto:fainard...@gmail.com wrote:
i have a simple question
May I suggest that you consolidate all your queries into a single email?
And perhaps invest 15-20 minutes giving the
On 2/28/11 7:09 PM, David Tomaschik wrote:
On 02/28/2011 05:40 PM, MFPA wrote:
I think key UIDs generally reveal more information than I am
comfortable with. For example, why does your UID need to contain your
email address in plain text rather than as a hash? Searching for that
email
On 2/28/11 7:09 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 02/28/2011 06:38 PM, David Shaw wrote:
I think the problem here is the large size of the deployed infrastructure
that expects user IDs to have email addresses in them combined with the
relatively few people who are asking for this feature.
1 - 100 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
