Re: compatible with PGP/Desktop

2011-03-16 Thread John Clizbe
Mike Acker wrote: > Is PGP/ENIGMAIL compatible with folks using Outlook or Microsoft Mail > with PGP Desktop? > > I've tried searching for this but no luck,-- :-( Enigmail is an extension for Thunderbird and Mozilla mail. It uses GnuPG for its cryptographic processing. It conforms to RFC2 4880 an

Re: compatible with PGP/Desktop

2011-03-16 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 3/16/2011 7:01 PM, Mike Acker wrote: > Is PGP/ENIGMAIL compatible with folks using Outlook or Microsoft > Mail with PGP Desktop? PGP is a registered trademark of the PGP Corporation. It's a great product, but Enigmail doesn't use it. Enigmail uses GnuPG, which is a compatible implementation o

compatible with PGP/Desktop

2011-03-16 Thread Mike Acker
Is PGP/ENIGMAIL compatible with folks using Outlook or Microsoft Mail with PGP Desktop? I've tried searching for this but no luck,-- :-( ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Running GnuPG smartcard with CTAPI?

2011-03-16 Thread Malte Gell
Hello, currently I have some trouble to get my Cyberjack running with PCSC. So I wonder, can GnuPG (2.0.16) also work with CTAPI drivers? Thanx Malte ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-user

re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread vedaal
Johan Wevers johanw at vulcan.xs4all.nl wrote on Wed Mar 16 09:16:56 CET 2011 : >Current OSes pose already a problem. PGP 2 did not provide nagtive binaries for win32 so I compiled them myself I've had a problem running Disastry's PGP 2.6.3 multi6 on 64 bit windows systems, because the DOS comm

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread David Shaw
On Mar 16, 2011, at 10:05 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, wrote: >> David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on >> Wed Mar 16 00:42:48 CET 2011 : >> >> >>> GnuPG does the MDC by default whenever all the keys can handle it >> >> What kind of key can't handle it in

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread David Shaw
On Mar 16, 2011, at 9:41 AM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote: > David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on > Wed Mar 16 00:42:48 CET 2011 : > > >> GnuPG does the MDC by default whenever all the keys can handle it > > What kind of key can't handle it in gnupg? None. It's not a key type, but a fea

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Robert J. Hansen
On 3/16/2011 10:05 AM, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > 2 key or 3 key? 2TDEA only provides about 80 bits of security, and is > usually not recommend for use. The OpenPGP spec requires three-key 3DES, and GnuPG conforms to the spec. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Jeffrey Walton
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 9:41 AM, wrote: > David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on > Wed Mar 16 00:42:48 CET 2011 : > > >>GnuPG does the MDC by default whenever all the keys can handle it > > What kind of key can't handle it in gnupg? > > I sent messages to all key types, including v3 keys, u

GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread vedaal
David Shaw dshaw at jabberwocky.com wrote on Wed Mar 16 00:42:48 CET 2011 : >GnuPG does the MDC by default whenever all the keys can handle it What kind of key can't handle it in gnupg? I sent messages to all key types, including v3 keys, using the forced MDC, (my preferred cipher is 3DES, n

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Johan Wevers
Op 16-3-2011 13:53, Mark H. Wood schreef: >> Only if IDEA gets broken (or the pgp 2.x implementation of it turns out >> flawed) or, very unlikely, 128 bit can be brute-forced in the future. > On that day it would be well to already know what to do about it and > already have the tools in hand. I

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Mark H. Wood
On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 09:15:45AM +0100, Johan Wevers wrote: > Op 15-3-2011 21:32, Ben McGinnes schreef: > > > That's probably a worthwhile discussion to have. Even if RFC1991 > > support is maintained, there's still value in migrating encrypted data > > to more robust algorithms. > > Only if I

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Ben McGinnes
On 16/03/11 8:50 PM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:33, b...@adversary.org said: > >> Okay, so that would cover 3DES too? Surely there can't be many > > No. DES and thus 3DES have a blocksize of 64 bit. The blocksize is not > related to the keysize. Ah, right, got it. Thanks.

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Werner Koch
On Wed, 16 Mar 2011 06:33, b...@adversary.org said: > Okay, so that would cover 3DES too? Surely there can't be many No. DES and thus 3DES have a blocksize of 64 bit. The blocksize is not related to the keysize. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bund

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Johan Wevers
Op 15-3-2011 21:57, Ingo Klöcker schreef: > Why migrate away? Even if GnuPG 3 stops supporting RFC1991 there will > always be GnuPG 1 and GnuPG 2 around to decrypt ancient data and verify > signatures made decades ago. If that is the case, you could also say we still have pgp 2.x arround includ

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Johan Wevers
Op 15-3-2011 21:32, Ben McGinnes schreef: > That's probably a worthwhile discussion to have. Even if RFC1991 > support is maintained, there's still value in migrating encrypted data > to more robust algorithms. Only if IDEA gets broken (or the pgp 2.x implementation of it turns out flawed) or, v

Re: GPG and PGP

2011-03-16 Thread Johan Wevers
Op 15-3-2011 21:16, Robert J. Hansen schreef: > This may not be so much an argument for IDEA's inclusion as it might be > an argument for data migration. How do I re-sign a message with someone else's private key? And for that matter, how do I do that convenient with a mailbox with many encrypted