I'm considering making my default hash RIPEMD160: does anyone have any
opinions on how this compares to SHA-2 algorithms in terms of both
security and availability?
The new SHAs have the benefit of about a dozen years of cryptanalytic
research behind them. RIPEMD160 is very similar to SHA-1,
Before switching to Gnome I was running KDE and gpg-agent apparently
started automatically when the system was booted. Now that I'm running
Gnome I've entered the following on the CLI:
gpg-agent --daemon --use-standard-socket
--log-file /home/chris/.gnupg/agent.log
Using webmin I've setup several
> It depends on what you're protecting against. For most common cases,
> a 8192-bit RSA key is likely so vastly stronger than the rest of your
> environment that a smart attacker wouldn't bother to attack it.
> They'd just go after what they want via other attacks against you and/
> or y
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:56, bmea...@ieee.org said:
>
>> I'm considering making my default hash RIPEMD160: does anyone have any
>> opinions on how this compares to SHA-2 algorithms in terms of both
>
> Don't do that. RIPEMD160 is a pure European a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Jean-David Beyer wrote:
> Another reason is that even if increasing my key size to would increase my
> security in some sense, I do not want my GPG security to be so strong that
> the black hats would bypass it and torture the key out of me.
Depend
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 18:56, bmea...@ieee.org said:
> I'm considering making my default hash RIPEMD160: does anyone have any
> opinions on how this compares to SHA-2 algorithms in terms of both
Don't do that. RIPEMD160 is a pure European algorithm and by design not
different than SHA-1; like most
On Jul 8, 2009, at 12:56 PM, Brian Mearns wrote:
I'm considering making my default hash RIPEMD160: does anyone have any
opinions on how this compares to SHA-2 algorithms in terms of both
security and availability? I like the idea that RIPEMD was developed
in an academic community instead of the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
David Shaw wrote:
| On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:21 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
|
|> Hey folks,
|>
|> Two years ago, there was a thread on this list, in which RSA key
|> sizes >2048 were discussed [0]. In these two years, the crypto-world
|> has been shaken up
I'm considering making my default hash RIPEMD160: does anyone have any
opinions on how this compares to SHA-2 algorithms in terms of both
security and availability? I like the idea that RIPEMD was developed
in an academic community instead of the NSA, but if there are genuine
benefits to using SHA,
Please don't top-post.
> I am trying to build gnupg on a RHEL box. I am not able to build
gnupg with gcc4. When I downgrade to gcc3 it is building. Looks like
this a bug with configure (http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-April/024364.html
). Is it fixed on the latest gnupg ver
On Jul 6, 2009, at 4:21 AM, martin f krafft wrote:
Hey folks,
Two years ago, there was a thread on this list, in which RSA key
sizes >2048 were discussed [0]. In these two years, the crypto-world
has been shaken up a bit, and computers got yet a bit more powerful.
0. http://lists.gnupg.org/pip
On Jul 7, 2009, at 12:08 PM, Senthilkumar .E wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to build gnupg on a RHEL box. I am not able to build
gnupg with gcc4. When I downgrade to gcc3 it is building. Looks like
this a bug with configure (http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-April/024364.html
). Is
--- Begin Message ---
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009 21:38, jan.s...@privacyfoundation.de said:
> I retrieve: "ERR 103 unknown command"
Way too old software.
> I was told that you also will release 1.4.10 with support for the
> OpenPGP Card V2. Do you have any schedule when this will be available?
This mo
martin f krafft wrote:
> Two years ago, there was a thread on this list, in which RSA key
> sizes >2048 were discussed [0]. In these two years, the crypto-world
> has been shaken up a bit, and computers got yet a bit more powerful.
With respect to key sizes, nothing has changed since then.
IMO, k
On Mon, 6 Jul 2009 10:21, madd...@madduck.net said:
> ask this list what they think about >2048bit keys, and 8192bit in
^^^
I see one eight miles high fence post with the rest of your areal
protected by a tripwire.
My position on that
Hi,
I am trying to build gnupg on a RHEL box. I am not able to build gnupg with
gcc4. When I downgrade to gcc3 it is building. Looks like this a bug with
configure
(http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-April/024364.html). Is it
fixed on the latest gnupg version ?
-Senthil
___
Hey folks,
Two years ago, there was a thread on this list, in which RSA key
sizes >2048 were discussed [0]. In these two years, the crypto-world
has been shaken up a bit, and computers got yet a bit more powerful.
0. http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2007-June/031285.html
I am trying
On Tue, 7 Jul 2009 22:24, mcs...@hotmail.com said:
> gpg: detected reader `AKS ifdh 0'
> gpg: detected reader `AKS ifdh 1'
> gpg: detected reader `AKS VR 0'
> gpg: detected reader `Aladdin Token JC 0'
> gpg: detected reader `SCM Microsystems Inc. SCR3340 ExpressCard Reader 0'
> gpg: pcsc_connect
18 matches
Mail list logo
