to this list.
Thanks so much, in advance.
-- Matt
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
> If you really care about such long preservation, carving the key into
> stone or baking it in a clay tablet are the only known methods that can
> reliably store data for so long (also because other methods don't exist
> for so long).
I'm also curious about a couple options I don't think I've
/language/functions/communication/wire/
Sorry about that :/
On Thu, May 5, 2022 at 5:30 PM Matt Borja wrote:
> The EEPROM notes are intriguing to me, and if that's an option you're
> considering, I went ahead and tossed up some old code onto a gist if you're
> interested. It's a crud
The EEPROM notes are intriguing to me, and if that's an option you're
considering, I went ahead and tossed up some old code onto a gist if you're
interested. It's a crude example of storing PGP private key in flash (vs.
SRAM) using a little PROGMEM hack for the Arduino Uno:
So I guess all that leaves us with at this point is laser welded
inscriptions onto a block of metal, installed backwards as the cornerstone
of the next monument being preserved by a historic society.
It’ll be the next iteration of 3D printing: MIaaB (Metal Inscriptions as a
Backup).
Whole
Does exporting your private key (which already comes encrypted and requires
password authentication) to encrypted USB flash drive then placed under
lock and key not suffice as an offline backup?
Aside: Private keys aren’t the only thing that should be getting backed up.
Revocation certs are
All problems disappeared with latest source. So everything is ok :)
Thank you once again
2018-03-06 3:15 GMT+09:00 Matt <matta...@gmail.com>:
> Thanks for the detail answer.
>
>> With GPGME as a dependency ... Claws or Mutt/Neomutt?
> Nope, just "alot" :) https:
or directory
gpg: can't connect to the agent: No such file or directory
gpg: Total number processed: 26
gpg: imported: 26
make[4]: *** [Makefile:630: pubring-stamp] Error 2
make[4]: Leaving directory '/build/gpgme-1.10.0/lang/python/tests'
make[3]: *** [Makefile:471: all-recursive] Error 1
Hi,
I've been trying to package gpgme python bindings for nixos
(www.nixos.org) since it's a dependency of the mail reader I use
(alot) but I haven't succeeded yet.
I manage to compile the python 2.7 bindings and to build a "wheel" (as
required by nixos, a wheel is a zip file replacing the older
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/6/2015 8:05 PM, Don Saklad wrote:
Anything that just works easily for folks?...
without knowing this stuff.
I think were going to need a bit more to go on. What
are you trying to do?
- -Matt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU
On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 12:54 AM, Ciprian Dorin Craciun
ciprian.crac...@gmail.com wrote:
Welcome to my worst nightmare: trying to make GnuPG agent (and for
that matter the SSH agent) runnable in the foreground. (My purpose
was to run it under a process supervisor like `runit` or `s6`, but
This might be a bug, but could also be user-error, so I thought I'd
check the mailing list.
I'm using gpg-agent v2.0.14 (this ships with CentOS/RHEL 6.5). This
distribution ships pinentry-0.7.6, but I also see this behavior with
the latest pinentry-0.9.0 from gnupg.org source.
Steps to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I am running enigmail 1.5.2 . Is this old? How can I get the
latest? Thanks!
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: MacGPG2 - http://www.gpgtools.org/macgpg2.html
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/18/2013 12:05 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
So in other words the message can not be read by some govt genius
with a rack of computers??
How would I know? Ask a government genius with a rack of
computers.
I don't know the extent of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi! What encryption algorithm do we use in OpenPGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: MacGPG2 - http://www.gpgtools.org/macgpg2.html
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 11:09 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
Hi Matt--
On 12/17/2013 10:07 AM, Matt D wrote:
Hi! What encryption algorithm do we use in OpenPGP
OpenPGP has algorithm agility, meaning that it's possible to use
different encryption
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 12:02 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Why would anyone choose AES-128 instead of something more secure,
say AES-256?
More secure is sort of ... missing the point. It's sort of like
arguing over whether King Kong or Godzilla is better
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 02:28 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Thanks a bunch that was easy. So mine is 2048 with AES-256.
Lets assume the people I email have the same preferences. So how
long, and at what cost would it take to brute force crack a captured
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 01:37 PM, David Shaw wrote:
On Dec 17, 2013, at 12:41 PM, Matt D md...@nycap.rr.com wrote:
How can I find whats on my list?
gpg --edit-key (thekey) showpref
You can see your own, or anyone else's preference list that way.
Note
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 04:54 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Lets assume the people I email have the same preferences. So
how long, and at what cost would it take to brute force crack a
captured message?
[sigh]
Not this again. I get very tired of
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 08:07 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
what about the 2048-bit DSA part of it?
Search the list archives, please -- this question has been asked
and answered a great number of times.
OK, I see. So . . . if brute force is impossible,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 10:33 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 12/17/2013 9:41 PM, Matt D wrote:
OK, I see. So . . . if brute force is impossible, then what sort
of an attack is possible?
Too many to list. Depends largely on your attacker's budget
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 12/17/2013 11:02 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 12/17/2013 10:57 PM, Matt D wrote:
Lets assume I run Ubuntu live from USB stick or cd when I need
secure messaging so an attacker cannot predict what machine i
will send my message from
If you want to be able to verify these message signatures, you
should set yourself up with a Mail User Agent that can handle
PGP/MIME-signed messages. Some examples are:
* thunderbird with the enigmail plugin * evolution * claws mail *
outlook with gpgOL (http://gpg4win.org/about.html)
my open pgp wont work. i cant get keys. using ubuntu 12.10. latest
version of gpg.
OpenPGP Security Info
Unverified signature
gpg command line and output:
gpg
gpg: Signature made Wed 14 Aug 2013 07:32:07 AM EDT
gpg:using DSA key 0x5BB6809BAE445B2E
gpg: can't open `/home/matt
:32:07 AM EDT using DSA key ID
gpg: BAD signature from xxx.com
however when i do:
gpg --sign-key
it tells me it is signed by my key.
What am i doing wrong here?
Thanks!
--
--
Matt D
___
Gnupg-users mailing
?
Thanks!
Matt Burkhardt
Impari Systems, Inc.
Customer Relationship Management Systems
We help you find and keep your best customers
m...@imparisystems.com
http://www.imparisystems.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mlburkhardt
502 Fairview Avenue
Frederick, MD 21701
work (301) 682-7901
cell (301
.
I've gone back and check to make sure - might be missing or included a
line feed in the file - does that matter? Any ideas or am I completely
out of luck?
Thanks
Matt Burkhardt
Impari Systems, Inc.
Customer Relationship Management Systems
We help you find and keep your best customers
m
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If you are sure that no one will ever guess your passphrase, then you
could safely publish your private key in the _New York Times_. That
would be a really extreme case, but you could do it.
But what if you publish it in a paper people actually _read_? :)
While I
.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 at 10:15, David Shawds...@jabberwocky.com wrote:
On Jul 1, 2009, at 9:05 AM, Matt Gantner wrote:
Hello.
I have uploaded my public key (GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)) via command
line and copy / paste methods into keys.gnupg.net and pgpkeys.mit.edu
and when I look up the key
device
On Jul 2, 2009, at 9:00, David SMITH dave.sm...@st.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 08:36:14AM -0400, Matt Gantner wrote:
I'm not terribly familiar PNG or GPG keys so bear with me.
I am understanding your statement to be saying that the two keys are
really the same asci text but the line
Hello.
I have uploaded my public key (GnuPG v2.0.10 (Darwin)) via command
line and copy / paste methods into keys.gnupg.net and pgpkeys.mit.edu
and when I look up the key on the systems they are different. I have
been looking at this problem for a few days and uploading my keys to
servers. So far
Alexander W. Janssen wrote:
I just found this on the NCSA-ticker:
http://security.ncsa.uiuc.edu/wiki/NCSA_makes_secure_group_email_services_available
Did anyone try this yet?
It does sound interesting, but how can I trust the signature of a key I
know wasn't generated by the appropriate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello, I can't seam to figure out how the different bitstrengh of my
public key effects anything. If someone encrypts something to my
private key, isn't the strength of the private key that matters?
So I have a 1024bit DSA pub and 4096 elgamal
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Everyone says it should be as long as possible, but there comes a point
where it's just impossible to remember anything longer than 20
characters. What do you think?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Hello, I have 50 or so keys I need to --lsign-key as quickly as
possible. Is there any way I can accomplish this in one foul swoop?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
I got it working, thanks John!
John Clizbe wrote:
| Matt Kinni wrote:
| Hello, I want to move my keyring files from %appdata%/gnupg to R:/
|
| I know you can do this somehow, I just can't figure out how. Is there
| something I can add to ggp.conf
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
So theres already been a lot of arguing over this and bla bla bla.
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines? Should an average user go with 1.4.x or 2.x?
David Shaw wrote:
| On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM,
avaliable.
I'm not behind any proxy servers or anything like that.
Does anybody know what might be going on? or are the keyservers just down?
Thanks,
Matt.
--
File not found. Should I fake it? (Y/N)
Matt Richards
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
be?
Thanks,
~Matt
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Wow, that's cool. That definitely would simplify things for me. Are there
plans in the future to incorporate PKCS#11 support into the main GnuPG
source?
On Jan 2, 2008 11:24 PM, Alon Bar-Lev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/2/08, Matt Alexander [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking
companies that also make OpenPGP compatible cards?
I'm looking at a possible deployment of OpenPGP smartcards at my company and
want to ensure that I have multiple vendors.
Thanks!
~Matt
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
This is a nonissue. I can't think of a stronger way to put it. The
mutability of the comment and version string is well known and
clearly documented in the RFC.
It is well known to people who have followed PGP GPG for years, some
who didn't watch as well will see
Werner Koch wrote:
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 15:55, Christoph Probst said:
I was working on a large number of files (about 300) which I exported from
my
email client (the result of a key signing party some weeks ago):
BTW, sending public keys encrypted or signed is a bad habit. There is
in
44 matches
Mail list logo
