Usually I use the gpg-agent to manage my ssh keys. But now it doesn't work
anymore.
A few days ago I lost homedir and everything got lost. I rebuild the gnupg
configuration to use the agent and the has ssh support enabled. I generated a
new ssh key and added it to the agent via ssh-add.
Now
I didn't have a host with gnupg version 2.0.15 ready so I regenerated the key
on a host with gnupg version 2.0.12 transfered my gnupg configuration back and
everything is working now with gnupg version 2.0.14.
Thank for a hint how to solve the problem.
The new ubuntu lucid which will be
I'm running the latest lucid version. Unless the patch was submitted only a
few hours ago and the package hasn't been built yet the problem still exists
in lucid.
I just updated and ran a test. Still the same error.
On Monday, 19. April 2010 09:58:11 Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010
It would be pretty bad if ubuntu releases gnupg with this bug since lucid is a
long term support release and gnupg might receive up to 5 years of reports of
regarding this bug on their mailing lists.
On Monday, 19. April 2010 09:58:11 Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:20,
I filled a launchpad bug report for this problem and attached the patch. The
report refers to the new ubuntu lucid release version of the gnupg.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnupg2/+bug/567106
I don't know if the maintainer of the package is going to react and integrate
the patch
It's fixed in gpg-agent 2.0.15 and an ubuntu bug report is filled.
Please mark you are being affected by this bug so maybe the ubuntu maintainer
will build a new package and include the patch.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnupg2/+bug/567106
On Saturday, 24. April 2010 20:33:04
The format of the time stamp can be change according to your locale. Just
specify an individual setting for LC_TIME.
On Tuesday, 27. April 2010 20:52:58 Jeff Sadowski wrote:
when I run something like so
cat test.email |gpg
where test.email is an email that was signed I get output like so
hi,
I recently purchased this usb gnupg smart card
https://www.privacyfoundation.de/crypto_stick/
Within an email developers stated the usb stick itself could handle keys with
a length of 4096 but gnupg doesn't support these key lengths.
Is there any way of transferring my existing 4096 bit
They seem to be trustworthy. I ordered a crypto stick last sunday. It arrived
on friday (inner german transport).
The stick works fine with ubuntu 10.04 but you have to install a patched driver
for libccid but it's quite possible the patch will be included upstream.
The stick works only with
I think it is. But isn't all packed within an usb dongle. There isn't a sim
slot. You can't simply change the openpgp card. At least without opening
(breaking) the casing.
The SCR3320 seems to be a little more universal.
On Saturday 01 May 2010 02:02:59 Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Fri,
I tried scute but it didn't work. I tried the versions 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and
the svn sources.
Scute compiled without problem. I followed the documentation on how to setup
gpgsm. Firefox lists crypto device and the private key on the key shows up
underneath the crypto device.
As soon as I
I'm using Ubuntu lucid (amd64) with firefox 3.6.3.
On Monday 03 May 2010 15:49:35 Werner Koch wrote:
On Mon, 3 May 2010 12:22, j...@seiken.de said:
selecting my key I always get this firefox error message
sec_error_pkcs11_function_failed.
Okay we need to check this. This should really
I was wondering how gnupg chooses a digest algorithm.
I used setpref to configure my gpg key to accept sha512,sha384,... digest
algorithms and set gnupg's option personal-digest-preferences to prefer
sha512,sha384,... hashes. If I sign something and specify myself as recipient
gpg2 in verbose
The developers said they are going to translate the shop soon.
As stated within the first email of this thread:
The Online Shop is currently in German only. Please mail me if you want
to purchase a Crypto Stick and have trouble placing the order.
So mail him and ask for help:
but shouldn't gnupg encrypt to both (all not-revoked)
encryption keys in this case? This way the user could decrypt the encrypted
message (email) regardless what encryption keys secrets are available at the
current location.
--
Joke de Buhr
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
On Tuesday 11 May 2010 23:02:18 markus reichelt wrote:
* Joke de Buhr j...@seiken.de wrote:
I'm not quiet sure but shouldn't gnupg encrypt to both (all
not-revoked) encryption keys in this case? This way the user could
decrypt the encrypted message (email) regardless what encryption
keys
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 00:44:37 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
I'm not suggesting that joke's proposal of
encrypt-to-all-encryption-capable-subkeys is the right choice, but it's
not clear that there's any particular reason to prefer one key over
another (perhaps if you were introducing a new
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 02:08:27 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
yup, i think this is a good argument for your proposed behavior. what i
haven't seen yet (haven't thought through yet) is what the
counter-arguments might be.
One possible argument against it could be the increased size of the
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 02:49:43 Grant Olson wrote:
I think the semantics and correct behavior become unclear when one of
the keys is revoked.
- Alice has two encryption keys.
- Bob sends to both keys.
- Alice revokes one key.
- Bob doesn't refresh his keys. Continues sending to
On Wednesday 12 May 2010 02:49:43 Grant Olson wrote:
So now Alice doesn't even realize that Bob is still sending sensitive
info on a potentially compromised key.
You might be able to put a weird exception where gpg checks to see if
any of your private keys that are revoked are one of the
I've detected the same problem.
If I disable the gpg-agent and use gnupg v1 instead gnupg is able to connect
to the pcsc daemon and use sha256 (and above) digests. If gnupg uses the agent
every attempt to do sha256 signing (--digest-algo sha256) fails.
So this is most likely an issue of
On Thursday 27 May 2010 00:08:41 Michael D. Berger wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2010 12:42:00 -0400, Grant Olson wrote:
On 5/26/10 10:14 AM, Michael D. Berger wrote:
I would like to use gpg to create encrypted directories on an external
hard drive. I would like to do this for both WinXP and for
My stick works fine with 3072bit rsa keys.
On Tuesday 25 May 2010 15:21:05 James P. Howard, II wrote:
On 5/10/10 5:04 PM, Olav Seyfarth wrote:
english version:
http://www.privacyfoundation.de/crypto_stick/crypto_stick_english/
My Crypto Stick arrived in the mail yesterday (Maryland,
Same with me. It seems to be a gnupg problem. If you don't use the scdaemon
the stick can do sha512 signatures.
I added I bug report a couple of days ago.
https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1229
On Thursday 03 June 2010 16:16:02 you wrote:
On 6/3/10 10:12 AM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
My stick
Each key can be 3072 bit.
ssb 3072R/0x96525A09870156C6 created: 2010-04-29 expires: never
card-no: 0005 0569
ssb 3072R/0x5354A50986C9F1CC created: 2010-04-29 expires: never
card-no: 0005 0569
ssb 3072R/0x22EDBA56D3E557E9
If I run the command on my primary keyring I get this output
$ gpg2 ~/.gnupg/secring.gpg
gpg: error reading key: No public key
It doesn't look like the reasonable action is deterministic.
On Monday 07 June 2010 21:43:23 Hauke Laging wrote:
Hello,
the man page says:
gpg2 may be run
I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and my public keys with a
valid mail address were published year ago.
I think it's more likely you will get spam because you are posting to a
mailing list which does have a html archive (liks this one).
If you want to get rid of most spam,
10, 2010, at 10:35 AM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and my public keys
with a valid mail address were published year ago.
I think it's more likely you will get spam because you are posting to a
mailing list which does have a html archive (liks
On Thursday 10 June 2010 17:29:18 MFPA wrote:
Hi
On Thursday 10 June 2010 at 3:35:34 PM, in
mid:201006101635.36328.j...@seiken.de, Joke de Buhr wrote:
I've never gotten any keyserver related spam so far and
my public keys with a valid mail address were published
year ago
On Thursday 17 June 2010 18:21:32 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Hi Prakash--
On 06/17/2010 09:59 AM, Gorugantu, Prakash wrote:
Our project has a requirement where we need to pull a file using PGP
encryption/decryption from one of our clients ftp servers. Please let us
know if we can use
On Thursday 17 June 2010 19:00:21 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
On 06/17/2010 12:45 PM, Joke de Buhr wrote:
Unlike PGP GnuPG is a non-commercial tool. There is no warranty. You
can't sue anyone if GnuPG does not do what it's supposed to do.
If your goal is to be able to sue someone over
Here is some kind of suggestion which might be helpful in your case.
If I need to do signing or encrypting on remote hosts I use ssh to execute the
signing command on a other remote machine in this case my local machine. It
doesn't work in any case but in some cases like git tag signing, email
The wikipedia has a very could article with lots of information on public-key
cryptography. It covers a lot of your questions regarding public keys and
private keys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-key_cryptography
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 15:09:49 Robert wrote:
Hi, we're using GnuPG 1.4.5
hi,
if I transfer my smartcard to an new host I can run
gpg2 --card-edit
fetch
to import my public key from a keyserver. But if done so gnupg doesn't
recognize the private subkeys stored on the smartcard. How do I tell gnupg
where it should look for the private subkeys?
signature.asc
34 matches
Mail list logo
