Re: [GPGME] Repeated decrypt fails

On Thu, 17 May 2018 20:48, trinh.ra...@gmail.com said: > err = gpgme_op_decrypt_start(ctx, fileEncrypted, fileDecrypted); > ctx = gpgme_wait(ctx, , 1); > > std::cout << "Decrypt Status: " << gpgme_strerror(err) << std::endl; Here you show the result of the start operation which is usuallay

Re: Efail or OpenPGP is safer than S/MIME

On 17.05.18 13:03, Werner Koch wrote: > If you parse DECRYTPION_INFO beplease consider that its current > defineion (in master) is: > > *** DECRYPTION_INFO [] > Print information about the symmetric encryption algorithm and the > MDC method. This will be emitted even if the decryption

Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

OK, maybe someones weekend will be spoilt after reading this comment, but hey, it's an original Jürgen Schmidt (responsible redactor seems to be Martin Holland), what else would you expect Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just ignore this comment.

Re: Breaking MIME concatenation

Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I don't have concrete numbers here, but my suspicion is that GnuPG is a > package verification system that's useful for email... and most of the > problems people have with it as a package verification system stem from > the fact it was originally an email privacy system.

Re: [GPGME] Repeated decrypt fails

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 5:58 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > Here you show the result of the start operation which is usuallay success. What you need to check here instead is STAT as returned by gpgme_wait. Thanks for that! I just fixed that and now the error I get the second time I

Re: AW: AW: AW: Users GnuPG aims for? (Re: Breaking MIME concatenation)

Il 18/05/2018 07:31, Fiedler Roman ha scritto: > I thought about that also, but shouldn't 99%+ of systems perform no pinning > whatsoever of packages to repositories? In that case, the "wrong" repository > could publish just a slightly increased package version number of a package > from

Re: AW: AW: AW: Users GnuPG aims for? (Re: Breaking MIME concatenation)

On Fri 2018-05-18 05:31:36 +, Fiedler Roman wrote: > I see. If understood correctly, the trusted.gpg.d bypasses key > management with apt-key completely, so not running into problems with > apt-key deprecation. I'm actually advocating avoiding trusted.gpg.d entirely as well, and moving to

Re: Breaking MIME concatenation

On Fri 2018-05-18 13:50:00 +, Whitey wrote: > Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> I don't have concrete numbers here, but my suspicion is that GnuPG is a >> package verification system that's useful for email... and most of the >> problems people have with it as a package verification system stem from

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

Hello Matthias, Friday, May 18, 2018, 3:40:53 PM, you wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just > ignore this comment. And again recommandatioin for Signal. It seems to be a PR campaign - but a very bad one. -- Best regards, Martin

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

I think heise is generally becoming more and more part of the rainbow press in gerneral.. but their repeated fake news about crypto and weird claims "crypto must become easy" (in the sense of: people shouldn't need to mutually authenticate) starts to get really dangerous for the unaware people

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

On 18/05/2018 20:27, Martin wrote: > Hello Matthias, > > Friday, May 18, 2018, 3:40:53 PM, you wrote: > >> Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just >> ignore this comment. > And again recommandatioin for Signal. It seems to be a PR campaign - > but a very bad one.

Re: [GPGME] Repeated decrypt fails

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Randy Trinh wrote: > > Thanks for that! I just fixed that and now the error I get the second time > I upload is the "NO_DATA" error (which is reasonable as it decrypts anyways > with no data), Again the file that is obtained through the

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

> Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just > ignore this comment. He's also not exactly wrong. The continuing support for SE packets is an embarrassment to us. In our defense, though, the GnuPG userbase revolts whenever Werner mentions something as mild as dropping

Re: Don't Panic.

"Gnupg-users" wrote on 05/15/2018 02:45:35 PM: > - Message from "Mark H. Wood" on Tue, 15 May > 2018 11:06:26 -0400 - > > To: > > gnupg-users@gnupg.org > > Subject: > > Re: Don't Panic. > > On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:48:31PM +0100,

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

On 18.05.18 15:40, Matthias Mansfeld wrote: > Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just > ignore this comment. > > https://heise.de/-4051354 Fortunately not everybody at Heise is clueless and/or a PGP hater: https://heise.de/-4050153 -Ralph

Re: Kommentar: Efail ist ein Megafail für E-Mail-Verschlüsselung | heise online

On 05/18/2018 08:51 AM, Mark Rousell wrote: > On 18/05/2018 20:27, Martin wrote: >> Hello Matthias, >> >> Friday, May 18, 2018, 3:40:53 PM, you wrote: >> >>> Jürgen Schmidt is a dedicated OpenPGP hater. Be warned and/or just >>> ignore this comment. >> And again recommandatioin for Signal. It