Excerpts from 's message of Mon Feb 20 10:56:32 +0100 2006:
Walter Haidinger schrieb am Samstag, dem 18. Feber 2006:
Now, I'd like to setup an OpenLDAP server to store the OpenPGP keys (for
use with GnuPG). [...]
However, I was unable to find any schema definiton...
Although I can encrypt a file using a script, when crontab runs the same
script, it returns the error message “no default secret key: No secret key”.
I have one secret key:
sananselmo backupscripts.d # gpg --list-secret-keys
/root/.gnupg/secring.gpg
sec
griffmcc wrote:
Although I can encrypt a file using a script, when crontab runs the same
script, it returns the error message “no default secret key: No secret
key”. I have one secret key:
sananselmo backupscripts.d # gpg --list-secret-keys
/root/.gnupg/secring.gpg
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011, Sascha Silbe wrote:
Excerpts from 's message of Mon Feb 20 10:56:32 +0100 2006:
Walter Haidinger schrieb am Samstag, dem 18. Feber 2006:
Now, I'd like to setup an OpenLDAP server to store the OpenPGP keys (for
use with GnuPG). [...]
However, I was unable to
Is it possible to add or remove a recipient to an already encrypted file and
thus without re-encrypting the whole file?
From what I understand GnuPG encrypts the payload (my binary file) with a
symmetric session key. Then it stores each recipient key ID (optional) as
well as an encrypted version
On 2/3/11 9:38 AM, Alphazo wrote:
Is it possible to add or remove a recipient to an already encrypted file
and thus without re-encrypting the whole file?
Technically, yes, although you would need to write the tool yourself.
Assuming I own the private key of one the original recipient, could
Am Donnerstag 03 Februar 2011 15:38:12 schrieb Alphazo:
Is it possible to add or remove a recipient to an already encrypted file
and thus without re-encrypting the whole file?
Not an answer but a proposal:
I have read this question several times on this list. I know that this is
possible
Hello,
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 03:38:12PM +0100, Alphazo wrote:
Is it possible to add or remove a recipient to an already encrypted file and
thus without re-encrypting the whole file?
From what I understand GnuPG encrypts the payload (my binary file) with a
symmetric session key. Then it
Hi,
Can some please help me how to avoid these messages whenever the gpg files
is decrypted. Here are the messages
gpg: Signature made Wed Feb 02 14:26:25 2011 PST using DSA key ID BD6608B2
gpg: Good signature from umesh (GPG encryptionl) a...@xxx.com
It is printing in logs everytime. Please
Hello,
Is the pgp from pgp.com compatible with gnupg ??
Is gnupg FIPS 140-2 compliant?
Dave
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On 2/3/11 12:34 PM, Keith Theman wrote:
Is the pgp from pgp.com compatible with gnupg ??
Generally, yes. PGP holds a patent on the Additional Decryption Key
functionality (which GnuPG developers have said will not be implemented
in GnuPG, even if it weren't patented), though, so that's an
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:28, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
is there a way for a program that parses --status-fd to get this
Not yet.
information, or does the program need to parse --logger-fd as well to
better don't do that; the messages may change. What about this new
feature:
On 02/03/2011 03:01 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 08:28, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
is there a way for a program that parses --status-fd to get this
Not yet.
information, or does the program need to parse --logger-fd as well to
better don't do that; the messages may
Hi folks--
I'd like to propose that GnuPG only prompt the user for a Comment for
their User ID under --expert mode.
Here's why:
* most people just need a simple identity-driven OpenPGP certificate,
one that matches their name and e-mail address.
* new users see the prompt and think they need
On 2/3/11 3:59 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
* most people just need a simple identity-driven OpenPGP certificate,
one that matches their name and e-mail address.
Whenever people talk about what most users need, I have to ask to see
the user survey that's showing this. History has shown that
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:13, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
This looks great. Thanks, Werner! Can we expect this in the 1.x and
2.0.x branches as well?
Hmmm. If you really want that please out it into the tracker; there is
a topic keyword backport.
Shalom-Salam,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken
The user running the cron job is root and the owner of the key is root.
I know this because I added
whoami whoami.txt
to the script and the contents of the file were root.
David SMITH-4 wrote:
griffmcc wrote:
Although I can encrypt a file using a script, when crontab runs the same
Here's what works for me:
echo 'password' | gpg -vvv --homedir /root/.gnupg --batch --passphrase-fd 0
--output /usr/share/file.gpg --encrypt --sign /usr/share/file.tar.bz2
--
View this message in context:
On 02/03/2011 04:19 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:13, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
This looks great. Thanks, Werner! Can we expect this in the 1.x and
2.0.x branches as well?
Hmmm. If you really want that please out it into the tracker; there is
a topic keyword
On 02/03/2011 04:07 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 2/3/11 3:59 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
* most people just need a simple identity-driven OpenPGP certificate,
one that matches their name and e-mail address.
Whenever people talk about what most users need, I have to ask to see
the user
On 2/3/11 4:30 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
my user survey is from several years of trying to personally help
dozens of people of all skill levels learn how to use OpenPGP for secure
messaging. Regardless of the intelligence or technical savvy of the
people i've personally helped get more
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:10:58 -0500, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
wrote:
On 2/3/11 4:30 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
my user survey is from several years of trying to personally help
dozens of people of all skill levels learn how to use OpenPGP for secure
messaging. Regardless
I like the idea of adding the (Optional) to the prompt because I'm a
big fan of optional fields being marked as such. This is an simple and
elegant fix to an issue.
And I'd hesitate to move it to expert since we have been (ab)using the
comment field for our keys, then again this is being used by
On Thursday 03 February 2011, griffmcc wrote:
Here's what works for me:
echo 'password' | gpg -vvv --homedir /root/.gnupg --batch
--passphrase-fd 0 --output /usr/share/file.gpg --encrypt --sign
/usr/share/file.tar.bz2
I suggest setting the passphrase of the key to an empty passphrase.
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 16:30:00 -0500
Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net articulated:
On 02/03/2011 04:07 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 2/3/11 3:59 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
* most people just need a simple identity-driven OpenPGP
certificate, one that matches their name and
On 02/03/2011 05:22 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:10:58 -0500, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
wrote:
Zero. Comments don't get certified. All my signature means is I have
met this person face to face, have seen two forms of government
identification, have
On 2/3/11 5:47 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
By certifying the full user ID you are also certifying the comment.
This is not how either OpenPGP or GnuPG work.
Certifiers get to define what their certifications mean. Bang, period,
end of sentence. There are *no* certification semantics in
Am Donnerstag 03 Februar 2011 23:22:38 schrieb Jameson Rollins:
I think this is why his original suggestion was to move it instead to
--expert. Moving it to --expert makes a lot of sense to me.
Perhaps it makes sense to extend the output of --gen-key by a hint like
Additional features are
On 02/03/2011 15:16, Hauke Laging wrote:
Am Donnerstag 03 Februar 2011 23:22:38 schrieb Jameson Rollins:
I think this is why his original suggestion was to move it instead to
--expert. Moving it to --expert makes a lot of sense to me.
Perhaps it makes sense to extend the output of --gen-key
On 02/03/2011 14:22, Jameson Rollins wrote:
I have to agree with Daniel that I have in fact honestly never spoken to
anyone who was*not* confused by that field. I can't ever remember
seeing a comment field used in any way that made sense to me.
I'm as pedantic as the next geeky dev, but I
On Feb 3, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I invite you to look through the User IDs in your own keyring, from the
perspective of a potential certifier, and ask yourself what does it
mean for me to certify these comments?
Zero. Comments don't get certified. All my signature means
On 2/3/11 6:30 PM, David Shaw wrote:
Or are you arguing the *meaning* of the certification (you may or may
not sign the user ID, but if you did sign it, the comment part should
be considered null and void in terms of your particular
certification)?
This. I may agree with the comment, I may
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 17:54:39 -0500, Robert J. Hansen r...@sixdemonbag.org
wrote:
But i suspect he would not want to certify this User ID:
Daniel Kahn Gillmor (I am really Robert Hansen) d...@fifthhorseman.net
Correct. Because the presence of my signature means something. The
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2011 02:28:05 -0500
From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net
is there a way to get information about which symmetric cipher was
used on an encrypted message when decrypting?
There may be other direct ways, but a simple unexpected way, is to
use the option
On 2/3/11 6:09 PM, Jameson Rollins wrote:
Just out of curiosity, can you explain why you wouldn't sign dkg's
hypothetical user ID?
Because with a comment like that, my impression would be that he was
aiming to deliberately yank my chain: and why should I put up with that?
To use that as an
On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 04:07:40PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Whenever people talk about what most users need, I have to ask to see
the user survey that's showing this.
I don't think it matters what the real numbers are. We've all seen user
ids with utterly unhelpful comments, and it stands
On 2/3/11 5:32 PM, Matthew James Goins wrote:
Personally I've never seen a comment that helped me identify the owner
of a key in a meaningful way.
The problem with anecdote is everyone's anecdote is different. As a ham
radio operator (KC0SJE), I have a fair number of keys that have comments
of
On 2/3/11 8:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
So, you're saying that hams are not smart enough to figure out how to
use expert mode if they really want this functionality? :)
You're moving the goalposts. That was responding to someone who denied
the usefulness of comments at all. If I'm establishing
On 02/03/2011 17:23, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 2/3/11 8:17 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
So, you're saying that hams are not smart enough to figure out how to
use expert mode if they really want this functionality? :)
You're moving the goalposts. That was responding to someone who denied
the
On 02/03/2011 17:10, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 2/3/11 5:32 PM, Matthew James Goins wrote:
Personally I've never seen a comment that helped me identify the owner
of a key in a meaningful way.
The problem with anecdote is everyone's anecdote is different. As a ham
radio operator (KC0SJE), I
On 2/3/11 8:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
then it's disingenuous to say but they can just use expert mode.
Why?
Because it does not recognize the validity of a well-answered question.
When a question is asked and answered, it is good form to recognize the
answer, rather than say ... well,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
El 03-02-2011 22:17, Doug Barton escribió:
On 02/03/2011 17:10, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
...
The problem with anecdote is everyone's anecdote is different. As a ham
radio operator (KC0SJE), I have a fair number of keys that have comments
of
On Thu, 3 Feb 2011 21:59, d...@fifthhorseman.net said:
* new users see the prompt and think they need to enter something
there, without understanding why or what to put there. This leads to
people either making a witticism (e.g. No Comment), repeating their
I have only seen a few of these
On 02/03/2011 17:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 2/3/11 8:36 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
then it's disingenuous to say but they can just use expert mode.
Why?
Because it does not recognize the validity of a well-answered question.
I recognized it, but I don't think the answer is as central
On 2/4/11 2:16 AM, Doug Barton wrote:
I recognized it, but I don't think the answer is as central to the
question of moving comments to expert mode as you do. Daniel's argument
boils down...
I wasn't responding to Daniel. I was responding to Matt Goins, as was
shown in my message, who said he
45 matches
Mail list logo
