-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/06/12 22:41, Sam Smith wrote:
>
> Another thing is that downloading the key from that link you provided is no
> guarantee of safety in and of itself either because the page is not being
> hosted over SSL with confirmed identity information. So
On 06/08/2012 10:35 PM, Waitman Gobble wrote:
> Hmm I dunno, ...opinion... this presumes an automated script can get
> 'bob's' attention
It's remarkably easy. Look at how many people fall for fraudulent "your
computer is infected, clean it for $29.95" pop-up ads. Look at how many
people click on
Robert J. Hansen wrote ..
> A fascinating paper just crossed my desk: Technical Report 666 from the
> University of Cambridge's computer science department. Although it has
> no relevance to GnuPG, it is such a cunningly evil idea -- and presented
> so clearly, without any sophisticated mathema
On 06/08/2012 05:37 PM, Sam Smith wrote:
> I downloaded the GnuPG program. I then ran --verify and was told that
> the key was signed with 0x4F25E3B6 key. I download 0x4F25E3B6 key from a
> key server and then asked people on this mailing list to confirm that I
> downloaded a legit key. Several peo
David,
I downloaded the GnuPG program. I then ran --verify and was told that the key
was signed with 0x4F25E3B6 key. I download 0x4F25E3B6 key from a key server and
then asked people on this mailing list to confirm that I downloaded a legit
key. Several people on this mailing list confirmed t
Another thing is that downloading the key from that link you provided is no
guarantee of safety in and of itself either because the page is not being
hosted over SSL with confirmed identity information. So technically there's no
guarantee I'm actually interacting with teh GnuPG.org website.
A fascinating paper just crossed my desk: Technical Report 666 from the
University of Cambridge's computer science department. Although it has
no relevance to GnuPG, it is such a cunningly evil idea -- and presented
so clearly, without any sophisticated mathematics -- that I think many
people here
On Jun 8, 2012, at 3:04 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> --no-for-your-eyes-only
> Set the `for your eyes only' flag in the message. This causes
> GnuPG to refuse to save the file unless the --output option is
> given, and PGP to use a "secure viewer" with a claimed Tempest-
>
--no-for-your-eyes-only
Set the `for your eyes only' flag in the message. This causes
GnuPG to refuse to save the file unless the --output option is
given, and PGP to use a "secure viewer" with a claimed Tempest-
resistant font to display the message. This optio
I have tried using the -encrypt-files option with limited success. If I
write the line like this:
D:\GnuPG>gpg --recipient "Client Key" --encrypt-files
d:\directory\sub\test_file_1 d:\directory\sub\test_file_2
It encrypts the 2 files without an issue.
If I write it the way I see on a few
On Tue, 5 Jun 2012 15:01, klaus.la...@gmx.de said:
> I found ticket https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue1238 which describes this
> error. Are there any plans to downport the fix described in the ticket to
> 2.0.X.
I am currently backporting the SCD changes in master branch to 2.0.
For this pa
11 matches
Mail list logo
