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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
10 matches
Mail list logo