On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 13:28, jc.gnupg...@unser.net said:
> I beg to differ. Given the classic Unix philosophy of chaining small tools
> which do their job well, GnuPG is already way too complex, especially for
> casual users. I generally prefer the ImageMagick concept of small tools
I would have
Hello.
Am Dienstag, den 08.01.2019, 20:16 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> Yes, agreed! However, as it currently is there is no need for bad
> actors because people have plenty of image space in a key.
Uh, I think you have found a new place where the guys can hide their
porn collections so there
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 18:50:12 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
Hi Peter,
[snip]
> I hope I did a good job of explaining my meaning this time around.
Yes, i think you did, even if i see things a bit different. But no worries! :-)
Since this is an interesting subject, i believe, i may check out how
Hi there,
I had a bad timing with my post, so just as a reminder for those who
were absorbed by the holidays. Any hint?
Regards,
--
Frank Hrebabetzky +49 / 9261 / 950 0565
On 1/3/19 3:25 PM, Frank Hrebabetzky wrote:
Hi all,
I have 2 encrypted files on my PC, let's call them
Hi Stefan,
On 08/01/2019 17:39, Stefan Claas wrote:
> To be honest i don't understand why this was implemented this way in
> the first place
I'm just guessing, I don't know for sure. But since it seems you're
unclear about what I meant, I'm trying to explain that.
I don't think this
On Tue, 08 Jan 2019 11:12:41 -0500, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Tue 2019-01-08 15:55:30 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > it seems a bit to much if you look at avatars, profile images
> > etc. on social media sites and other places. The images there are always
> > reasonably in size when
On Tue 2019-01-08 15:55:30 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
> it seems a bit to much if you look at avatars, profile images
> etc. on social media sites and other places. The images there are always
> reasonably in size when displayed and do not offer such large image size for
> usage, IIRC.
I think
Hi Stefan,
On 08/01/2019 15:55, Stefan Claas wrote:
> Correct, but still it seems a bit to much
Which is why I think this is not intended as a restriction to the users,
but a restriction for DoS.
Usually people here complain GnuPG doesn't allow for their use case,
it's refreshing to read an
On Sun, Jan 06, 2019 at 11:12:28PM +0100, Stefan Claas wrote:
GnuPG is world standard for email and probably file encryption, so
why not for image encryption too? :-)
As Dirk already said, you can encrypt image files with GnuPG already ;-)
And why should I trust people less who maintain
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 14:32:21 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
Hi Peter,
> Suppose --edit-key restricted you in some way. This is free software.
> You just remove the restriction and recompile. Just like some people
> enjoy making insanely large RSA keys with GnuPG: they just remove the
> limit and
Hello Stefan,
On 08/01/2019 14:21, Stefan Claas wrote:
> I must admit i don't understand the DoS aspect in this regard
I hadn't looked closely, but since this is MAX_..._LENGTH in
parse-packet.c, I assumed this is a cutoff while parsing packets. So if
GnuPG encounters a packet that declares it
On Tue, 8 Jan 2019 12:19:53 +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 08/01/2019 10:52, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > #define MAX_ATTR_PACKET_LENGTH( 16 * 1024*1024)
> > [...]
> >
> > Was this large image size requested so that people
> > in crypto circles can hide stuff in images etc. and then
> > use key
On 08/01/2019 10:52, Stefan Claas wrote:
> #define MAX_ATTR_PACKET_LENGTH( 16 * 1024*1024)
> [...]
>
> Was this large image size requested so that people
> in crypto circles can hide stuff in images etc. and then
> use key servers as secret distribution medium?
Well, changing this number to
Hi Werner and all,
may i ask who had the brilliant idea to allow super large photos
in OpenPGP keys?
I ask, because when one likes to add a photo GnuPG recommends
the size of 240x288 Pixels, which is a good choice.
However when looking at parse-packet.c it says at line 44:
#define
14 matches
Mail list logo
