Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Sun, 4 Nov 2018 21:51:00 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 17:48:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > First i signed the document with my qualified certificate and then > gave it a qualified time stamp. Finally i

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 17:48:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > I think this may be also a good thing if it would be accepted > by the PGP community, say if someone lost his/her GnuPG > revocation certificate and passphrase for his/her secret key > that one could sign a document too containing the key

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Am 03.11.18 um 17:30 schrieb Juergen BRUCKNER: Hello Stefan, Hello all, of course it is possible, that several people sign (and/or timestamp) a document. Just a example out of my business: There is a contract to be signd by mor than 2 persons or parties. So i make a document of it - for example

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Stefan, Hello all, of course it is possible, that several people sign (and/or timestamp) a document. Just a example out of my business: There is a contract to be signd by mor than 2 persons or parties. So i make a document of it - for example a pdf file (which is recommended) - and send it

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018 10:43:49 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:42:40 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > I strongly assume that it is also possible that someone > > else can sign my .pdf too with a qualified signature and > > this will also not invalidate my qualified signature, unless

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Wiktor. Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 17:17 +0100 schrieb Wiktor Kwapisiewicz: > On 02.11.2018 15:35, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > > I prefer GPG. And no, GPG does not lack timestamping, a timestamp > > is > > included in every signature. > Signature creation date is not the same as

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Juegen. Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 18:27 +0100 schrieb Juergen BRUCKNER: > Hello Dirk, > Am 02.11.18 um 15:20 schrieb Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users: > > You mean, you "tampered" with the file and the signature is still > > valid? Are you sure? Then Adome does sometging really bad, IMHO.

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 15:42:40 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > Am 02.11.18 um 15:20 schrieb Dirk Gottschalk: > > Hello Stefan. > > > > Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 12:53 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > >> Hi Wiktor, > >> > >> thanks a lot! Now this is awesome... i just timestamped my already > >> signed

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Dirk, Am 02.11.18 um 15:20 schrieb Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users: > You mean, you "tampered" with the file and the signature is still > valid? Are you sure? Then Adome does sometging really bad, IMHO. > > Such a signature should ensure that the file is unmodified completely. > otherwise

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On 02.11.2018 15:35, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > I prefer GPG. And no, GPG does not lack timestamping, a timestamp is > included in every signature. Signature creation date is not the same as timestamping. As for why you may consider the problem of validating signatures made by revoked keys. Without

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Am 02.11.18 um 15:20 schrieb Dirk Gottschalk: Hello Stefan. Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 12:53 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: Hi Wiktor, thanks a lot! Now this is awesome... i just timestamped my already signed .pdf with Adobe Reader DC and this does not invalidate my qualified signature, when

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Wiktor. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 20:14 +0100 schrieb Wiktor Kwapisiewicz: > On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote: > Do you mean X.509 is technically good or just more widely supported > in software than OpenPGP? For me there are only few cases where X.509 >

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Stefan. Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 12:53 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > Hi Wiktor, > > thanks a lot! Now this is awesome... i just timestamped my already > signed .pdf with Adobe Reader DC and this does not invalidate my > qualified signature, when saving the document again! :-) I must

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hi guys. Am Freitag, den 02.11.2018, 12:53 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:20:43 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote: > > On 02.11.2018 10:53, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > Simply one can use a time stamping service, based on blockchain > > > technology. I can then time stamp the

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018 12:20:43 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote: > On 02.11.2018 10:53, Stefan Claas wrote: > > Simply one can use a time stamping service, based on blockchain > > technology. I can then time stamp the .pdf. and put also a > > statement in the .pdf that the file is timestamped and

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On 02.11.2018 10:53, Stefan Claas wrote: > Simply one can use a time stamping service, based on blockchain > technology. I can then time stamp the .pdf. and put also a > statement in the .pdf that the file is timestamped and don't must > worry in the future if one MITM would try (and why?) to

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 23:50:48 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: Hi veedal, > > A simple, but slightly tedious workaround, would be to GnuPG Armor > > Sign the .pdf > > > > The elDAS signature will still work, but the Armored Signed message > > is much harder to alter, and such alteration is detectable

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hi veedal, On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:20:33 -0400, vedaal via Gnupg-users wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > > > > > That is the reason why i like to sign the .pdf, containing my key > >

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > That is the reason why i like to sign the .pdf, containing my key > data, with a qualified eIDAS conform signature. The detached GnuPG > sig should be an

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 20:14:19 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote: > On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote: > > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > > those made from Governikus and maybe CT

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote: > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. I, for one, like the OpenPGP's approach of

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:32, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote: > > Oh, you have also this issue? IO read about it in a Facebook group. > Libreoffice is complaining about a bad signature with Zertificates from > D-Trust even after importing the root. When you have the same problem, > they seem

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:23:04 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote: Hi Dirk, > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > I am also *very much* interested what infos users in the U.S., > > Canada, >

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hi Stefan. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > I am also *very much* interested what infos users in the U.S., > Canada, > U.K. and Ireland, for example, see (is the certificate Info displayed > in > English?)

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:32:58 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > I am not able to verify a qualified eIDAS conform X.509 sig, which > > i can create now, with LibreOffice, nor with other tools, except > > Adobe Reader DC or with the

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > Here is a little example, of a .pdf i have signed with my > > > qualified signature: > > > > > > https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf > > > > > Linux users can verify my qualified signature here: > >

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: Hi Dirk, > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 11:19 +0100 schrieb > stefan.cl...@posteo.de: > > Hi Dirk, > > I personally like that we have such EU regulation. And i understand > > that it costs money to build and maintain such

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

hi Stefan. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 11:19 +0100 schrieb stefan.cl...@posteo.de: > Hi Dirk, > > To answer your question, even if the answer is not what you > > expected: > I expected something like this... ;-) > > > I don't think this would change anything on the reputation on your > >

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hi Dirk, To answer your question, even if the answer is not what you expected: I expected something like this... ;-) I don't think this would change anything on the reputation on your key. I even don't think there is any good reason for the EU-Regulation at all. There is much taste of "get

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hello Stefan. Am Mittwoch, den 31.10.2018, 18:59 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:53:33 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > i hope this is not to much off-topic... > > > > I recently signed up for the new Service of Germany's > > Bundesdruckerei*, to obtain a

Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

Hi all, i hope this is not to much off-topic... I recently signed up for the new Service of Germany's Bundesdruckerei*, to obtain a *qualified* X.509 Certificate, which is complaint with the EU's eIDAS regulation. Because PGP signatures are not qualified, nor the pub keys, i thought to create a

Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document

On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 18:53:33 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > Hi all, > > i hope this is not to much off-topic... > > I recently signed up for the new Service of Germany's > Bundesdruckerei*, to obtain a *qualified* X.509 Certificate, > which is complaint with the EU's eIDAS regulation. Oh... sorry