-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
John W. Moore III wrote:
> Zach Himsel wrote:
>
>>> I created a RSA key that can sign and encrypt (only one key, no subkey).
>>> Is that ok? Or is that a security and/or performance weakness? Or is it
>>> better?
>
> That's Fine! There is *no* sec
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Zach Himsel wrote:
> I created a RSA key that can sign and encrypt (only one key, no subkey).
> Is that ok? Or is that a security and/or performance weakness? Or is it
> better?
That's Fine! There is *no* security weakness there; as long as the Ke
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Zach Himsel wrote:
> My private key was recently compromised (Which sucks, I know). I was in
> the process of generating a new keypair when I realized "Why do I use
> RSA? What's the difference". Hence my question :)
>
> If I *do* use DSA/ElGamal, w
My private key was recently compromised (Which sucks, I know). I was in
the process of generating a new keypair when I realized "Why do I use
RSA? What's the difference". Hence my question :)
If I *do* use DSA/ElGamal, what bitrate should I use? I know there are
FAQs and documentations that say to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
As far as I got from the documentation, gpgsm is no replacement but an
extension for gpg (even when it may be run alone) for using S/MIME.
mkontakt schrieb:
> Sorry to bother, but are there any differences between gpg and gpgsm
> apps. The only differ
