On 9/6/07, Oskar L. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One thing I forgot to mention in that discussion, is that since DSA is the
> default, there are probably many more DSA keys in use currently than RSA
> keys. (If anyone has any statistics that would be interesting to see.)
> Therefore, if a governme
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> sorry,
> hushmail insisted on duplicating the periods,
> there should be only one period instead of two on the lines
> indicated,
That is because in the smtp protocol, a period on a line by itself
(.) signifies the end of a mail message, so _every_ e-mail
client _mus
On Fri, 7 Sep 2007 15:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Or would you want to read Werner Koch's mail and that of a few other
> crypto enthusiasts? Despite its standardization and patent-free
This requires support for Elgamal because DSA is used only for signing.
Actually DSS (DSA + SHA*) is an natio
On Tue, 4 Sep 2007, Werner Koch wrote:
>> gpg: [don't know]: indeterminate length for invalid packet type 13
>> gpg: keydb_search_first failed: invalid packet
>
> Are you sure that you copied the keys correctly. The "13" may be an
> indication that you forgot to switch the ftp client to binary mod
Ryan Malayter wrote:
> A general technique which allows RSA to be broken is far more
> valuable than a general break in DSA or ElGamal.
Breaking the discrete log problem also breaks the integer factorization
problem. IFP can be seen as a special case of the DLP.
Breaking DLP breaks every asymmet
Noiano wrote:
> First off all thanks for your answers, I have now clearer ideas :-).
> For what concerns SHA-1 I read that, thanks to the collisions, an
> attacker can modify the message but the signature verification well
> be ok.
That's not possible today. Today, it would be extraordinarily dif
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Noiano wrote:
>> First off all thanks for your answers, I have now clearer ideas :-).
>> For what concerns SHA-1 I read that, thanks to the collisions, an
>> attacker can modify the message but the signature verification well
>> be ok.
>
> That's not possible today. Toda
Noiano wrote:
> In my openpgp preferences in thunderbird I've tried to set sha-256 but I
> got an error saying it was only possible to use sha-128. What went wrong?
Beats me, but I'm sure the other Enigmail users on-list will chime in
with helpful advice.
> 0_0 I didn't know thatwhat a bad ne
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thank you very much,
I'm using Cygwin now.. :)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: http://firegpg.tuxfamily.org
iD8DBQFG4iYmHuqxyCZQdwkRAniwAJwO5bpGZ/TpYL3mRBcmobSHT82m8gCcDexc
W+M7K0EIVEX/GgQu8xkWv78=
=RJnh
