Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-06 Thread Werner Koch
On Wed, 5 Dec 2012 22:39, sben1...@yahoo.de said: If I wanted to have a fallback for loosing the mapping table, would there be a sane way to encrypt the filename with gpg? That way I could --set-filename string Use string as the filename which is stored inside

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-05 Thread Max Parmer
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM, sben1783 sben1...@yahoo.de wrote: On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:40:22 +0200, yyy y...@yyy.id.lv wrote: There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give much in the way of secrecy. It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-05 Thread Ben Staude
Am 05.12.2012 18:59, schrieb Max Parmer: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM, sben1783 sben1...@yahoo.de wrote: Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its original name. I'm still interested whether this would be insecure? If by insecure you mean, could lead to exposing

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-05 Thread Max Parmer
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM, Ben Staude sben1...@yahoo.de wrote: Am 05.12.2012 18:59, schrieb Max Parmer: On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM, sben1783 sben1...@yahoo.de wrote: Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its original name. I'm still interested whether this

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-05 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 12/5/2012 6:10 PM, Max Parmer wrote: Here's my cite on the CAST weakness: http://www.schneier.com/paper-relatedkey.html This falls squarely into the range of theoretical breaks. Notice that the attack requires 2**17 chosen plaintexts to all be encrypted with the same symmetric key. Since

Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-05 Thread vedaal
Ben Staude sben1783 at yahoo.de wrote on Wed Dec 5 22:39:04 CET 2012 : Well I do *not* want to reveal my private paths/filenames in the remote backup location. I won't upload the summary file as plaintext, but maybe encrypted as contents.gpg or the like. So I need another identifier for each

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread yyy
There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give much in the way of secrecy. It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not name. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread sben1783
On Tue, 4 Dec 2012 14:40:22 +0200, yyy y...@yyy.id.lv wrote: There isn't enough entropy in a filename for an MD5 checksum to give much in the way of secrecy. It seems that MD5 checksum is computed from file contents, not name. Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not

Re: Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-04 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 12/4/2012 3:03 PM, sben1783 wrote: Yes, I meant to use the MD5 checksum of the original file, not its original name. I'm still interested whether this would be insecure? Let's not even use the word insecure, since that word is wholly subjective: there's no agreed-upon definition for what it

Is it safe to rename file.gpg to `md5sum file`?

2012-12-03 Thread Ben Staude
Hi all, I'm thinking about a scenario for remote backup with gpg-encrypted files (--symmetric, one by one). In addition to encrypting the files contents, I'd like to hide their names also. My backup tool can do the gpg-part for me (i.e. encrypt every file when backing it up) and it creates