Hey! Too much things to answer... I will only respond some that I can know the
answer, sorry.
A Diumenge 04 Juny 2006 22:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] va escriure:
(...)
> Thirdly, GPG is based upon a hybrid system entirely. The data of any
> file is ALWAYS encrypted symmetrically, and a symmetric key i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
On 06/04/2006 10:36 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Firstly, in pure RSA/ElGamal etc, there is no passphrase U - there's
> numbers p,q,g,a,b, etc.
Only when you encrypt.
> The way I understand it:
> Your secret key is encrypted using your passphra
I have a couple of questions about GPG that fall in the range above
pure mathematical equations but below "You use this option." Mostly
they're of the form "This is how I understand it now, can you confirm
that I've got it?"
Firstly, in pure RSA/ElGamal etc, there is no passphrase U - there's
nu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Graham wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:33:14 -0400 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>> the cost is *astronomical*
>>
>> have played around with it when it was released as a free command
>> line pgp 8.5 beta
> [snipped]
>
> AFAIK this is the latest PG
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 11:33:14 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > While I prefer gnupg to pgp myself, I did just happen to see a
> > reference to pgp command line today
>
> the cost is *astronomical*
>
> have played around with it when it was released as a free
> command line pgp 8.5 beta
[snipp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
After several independent queries about my PKCS#11 patch to gpg 1.4, I've
decided to start an independent project and do the thing properly instead
of keeping the patch up-to-date.
The project aims to replace the scdaemon component of GnuPG 2 wit
