On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 11:48:06 +1000, Raymond said:
Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
No. Once issued they should not be removed.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 20:46:29 +0200, Holger Schüttel said:
hallo bin auf diesem sektor noch absolut blank aber irgendwie funzt
das eingeben der befehle nicht habe gnu1.4.2 und ich muß doch eingeben
Bitte hier englisch schreiben oder aber die Liste [EMAIL PROTECTED]
benutzen.
Please write in
Raymond wrote:
Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
Technically, yes. But no implementation I know of allows this because
it would make someone vulnerable for attack is someone gained access
to your machine. However, when a legitimate reason exists (accidentally
revoked a key,
On Wednesday, August 10, 2005, 9:45:07 AM, Johan wrote:
Is it possible to remove a revocation certificate?
Technically, yes. But no implementation I know of allows this
Originally, this thread was about signature revocations (not key
revocations) and they definitely can be removed with gpg
IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
a proof of concept I can't get myself motivated to improve it.
On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:57:50AM +0930, Roscoe wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michael Daigle wrote:
snip
It's unfortunate, but it's prevalent - and that's why inlined PGP is a
good thing. We can still retain message authentication despite the
goof-ball between us and the recipient.
Quite often, the goof-ball *is* the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Chris De Young wrote:
Maybe there are a few who wonder enough what it is you're sending them
to go figure it out; if so, that's a win, but I doubt it happens very
often. :)
Don't underestimate it. I saw Using Enigmail with Thunderbird and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folkert van Heusden wrote:
IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
a proof of concept I can't get myself
IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
a proof of concept I can't get myself motivated to improve it.
The password hashing is supposed to make it *difficult*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Folkert van Heusden wrote:
IIRC 200/s on a 2.8GHz P4
I discussed improving nasty with an unnamed gpg-expert and he thought it
should be feasable to do at least a million per second. But as nasty is
a proof of concept I can't get myself motivated
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Before I installed the June 16th version
I was running an older version of the GPGExch.dll (Oct. 19, 2004)
(labeled as 1.1.0.0) that had a GDGPG.dll (1.3.0.0) file as well.
Outlook's Add-in Manager doesn't seem to know how to UNINSTALL an
add-in. You
Werner Koch wrote:
Please write in English here...
It is unnecessarily rude to demand that a particular language is
used on any 'net list. One writing in a language not understood
by the majority of those present will simply get fewer useful
responses: a perfectly adequate self-regulating
Not when there are specific mailing lists to answer
questions asked in these:
http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/mailing-lists.html
I really woudn't want a lof of Portuguese, Spanish,
Russian or German worded questions to be asked in this
mailing list.
--- cdr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Some more information. If I send a signed message to outlook and try
to verify it, I get an error dialog:
GPG Verify
Invalid crypto engine
My WinPT installation verifies the signature without a problem
(from the clipboard).
Richard.
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 15:10 +, cdr wrote:
Werner Koch wrote:
Please write in English here...
It is unnecessarily rude to demand that a particular language is
used on any 'net list. One writing in a language not understood
by the majority of those present will simply get fewer useful
On 8/10/05, Alphax [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How long will 8 characters (standard unix password length) take to break
at present?
Using the supplied figure of 200 keys per second, and using only the
95 printable ASCII characters:
(95^8)/200 seconds. Or about 1.1 million years!
Obviously, if you
On Wed Aug 10 2005; 09:58, R. Jensen wrote:
Outlook's Add-in Manager doesn't seem to know how to UNINSTALL an
add-in. You can disable it, but that doesn't get rid of the entry. :-(
In the case of the GPG Outlook plugin, it's no problem. Just register
the new version of gpgexch.dll and the
On Wed Aug 10 2005; 10:50, R. Jensen wrote:
to verify it, I get an error dialog:
GPG Verify
Invalid crypto engine
My WinPT installation verifies the signature without a problem
I see you still use GPG 1.2.x. The plugin requires 1.4 and we will
provide an more informative error
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Timo Schulz wrote:
I see you still use GPG 1.2.x. The plugin requires 1.4 and we will
provide an more informative error message with the next version of
the plugin.
BTW, the newest WinPT version also requires GPG 1.4.x.
The 1.2.6 is on the
Richard Sperry wrote:
The issue you have is caused from the newer version of
GnuPG. Timo is doing a great job of writing a newer
version, but with all new releases it takes time to
find the bugs.
for a working beta of my Ol03 installer goto
http://www.sperryservices.com/gnutools.htm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Do you use the version 0.99.4? It is known that earlier version of
the plugin can crash O2003/SP1.
Where can I get the 0.99.4 version? I downloaded from
http://www.g10code.de/p-outlgpg.html last week and that is
the 0.99.2 version I'm having
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
(granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
worry ;-)
but, in principle,
shouldn't all key editing functions require a passphrase ?
tia,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
(granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
worry ;-)
but, in principle,
shouldn't all key editing functions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
In reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]'s message sent 2005-08-10 17:18:
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
You're not issuing a signature when deleting a
On Wed, 2005-08-10 at 14:18 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when adding a new userid, gnupg understandably requires a
passphrase,
why doesn't gnupg require a passphrase when deleting a uid ?
(granted, if someone found my secring.gpg, this would be my least
worry ;-)
but, in
OK, I'm getting frustrated with the interaction with the smart card.
I have generated a new ElGamal encryption key, 0x16AF3873.
$ gpg --edit-key 51192ff2
gpg: NOTE: THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT VERSION!
gpg: It is only intended for test purposes and should NOT be
gpg: used in a production environment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
While polishing my settings on this new PC, I realize I've forgotten how
to set RIPEMD160 as the Hash Algo to use. Running M$ XP with
1.4.2/Enigmail GPGshell 3.45. Help Appreciated!
JOHN :)
Timestamp: Wed 10 August 2005, 06:58 PM --400 (Eastern
John W. Moore III schrieb:
While polishing my settings on this new PC, I realize I've forgotten how
to set RIPEMD160 as the Hash Algo to use. Running M$ XP with
1.4.2/Enigmail GPGshell 3.45. Help Appreciated!
digest-algo RIPEMD160
cert-digest-algo RIPEMD160
Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
someone's public key, leave an outdated one,
and either publicly post the key , or upload that key to a new
keyserver that did not have it before,
That's one of the reasons why most keyservers synchronise.
wouldn't it be better where the deluid could be 'local
Eric wrote:
Deleting a uid just means,
more or less, chopping a block of bytes out of secring.gpg.
Are uid's also stored in the secret key? I thought they only existed
in the public key, since that's the only place where they are needed.
Storing in the secring is double: one can assume that if
30 matches
Mail list logo
