At Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:32:25 -0700,
mweisler wrote:
What is good practice in this regard and where might I read more about
it?
You could create a new identity and, optionally, revoke the old one.
Read more about it in the GNU Privacy Handbook. Also, keep in mind
that, if your key is very old
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David Shaw wrote:
On Sun, Jul 24, 2005 at 08:00:48PM +0400, Vladimir N. Kutinsky wrote:
Hi,
I am decrypting files sent to me by another user through my HTTP server.
Quite often I get errors that look like the following snippet:
gpg: fatal:
On Monday 25 July 2005 4:06 am, Michael Nguyen wrote:
Eh...something very custom for our customer base. It wouldn't be useful to
anyone else.
Assumption is the mother of all $^£*^ ups.
:-)
Basically, what I'm going to do is allow a PGP option for our
users. We'll have a bunch of key
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 22:42:20 +0200, Zeljko Vrba said:
I would disagree on that. Java Card is totally programmable and if you
want you can implement the complete ISO7816 command set (as far as the
Sorry, this is was a misinterpretation by me.
hardware permits, of course). The downside is that
On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 23:58:13 +0400, Vladimir N Kutinsky said:
Does anyone know what it means?
gpg: CRC error; 92501E - 300D6B
gpg: [don't know]: invalid packet (ctb=2b)
The input data is garbled. Transmission error or the usual ascii
vs. binary FTP problem.
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:42:39 +0200, Felix E Klee said:
Your wording implies that the cards I mentioned aren't both secure and
fast. Any pointers?
No, I was just not aware that they support 2k RSA and key generation
in particular. My (old) specs don't say so.
isn't that interesting,
Felix E. Klee wrote:
Huh? AFAICS, in general it is more important to have the subkeys on a
smart card than the master key. After all the master key can be stored
But then you cannot commit a mortal sin of using GPG remotely ;)
Seriously, I think you have a very strong point in case of
Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:42:39 +0200, Felix E Klee said:
isn't that interesting, though. The point is that AFAICS PKCS#11
clearly defines an API, and perhaps it may become an ISO standard in the
No it does not define a clean API. Almost everyone is using
proprietary
Werner Koch wrote:
Well for the OpenPGP card you don't need any filesystem as we onjly
use the get/put data commands. Thus a simple offset,length table is
what you need. Well, you know that of course.
Yeah, I know that very well :) It took me a bit of time to correctly
implement the
