Re: Multiple Subkey Pairs

2014-03-17 Thread Michael Anders
I apologize for having triggered the emotionally agitated exchange in this thread culminating in someone bringing up the German-Jew trauma. I did not intend this and will try to make future points in a more moderate language. I acknowledge the outburst of true emotion by the person I responded to

Re: Multiple Subkey Pairs

2014-03-17 Thread Robert J. Hansen
The YYY (-a famous three letter agency) e.g. denies to archive content of YYY citizens mails. It is thus perfectly reasonable to assume it does so with all other ones. This is not a reasonable inference. I deny being able to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Is it perfectly

Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On 03/15/2014 03:53 PM, Juha Heljoranta wrote: I am not able to get the gpg to verify a signature. Any advice how to fix this? Or could the key 9C973C92 be invalid/broken? $ mkdir -m 700 newgnupg $ echo foo zinc-0.2.0.jar $ wget

Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread David Shaw
On Mar 15, 2014, at 3:53 PM, Juha Heljoranta juha.heljora...@iki.fi wrote: Hi, I am not able to get the gpg to verify a signature. Any advice how to fix this? Or could the key 9C973C92 be invalid/broken? The key may be fine, but the signature is invalid. DSA keys specify how many bits

Re: locale bug in 1.4

2014-03-17 Thread David Tomaschik
On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 9:28 PM, Hauke Laging mailinglis...@hauke-laging.de wrote: Hello, I may have found a locale bug in 1.4.12. I am aware that this is not the current version but I cannot easily install 1.4.16 now. 1.4.12 is the version in Knoppix 7.2. I have problems with non-ASCII

Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread David Shaw
On Mar 17, 2014, at 10:39 AM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote: On 03/15/2014 03:53 PM, Juha Heljoranta wrote: I am not able to get the gpg to verify a signature. Any advice how to fix this? Or could the key 9C973C92 be invalid/broken? $ mkdir -m 700 newgnupg $ echo

Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread Werner Koch
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:39, d...@fifthhorseman.net said: So gpg's behavior seems to be non-uniform here. That said, i'd love to As required by FIPS-186-3, 4.2: This Standard specifies the following choices for the pair L and N (the bit lengths of p and q, respectively): L = 1024, N

Re: Multiple Subkey Pairs

2014-03-17 Thread Robert J. Hansen
That is an odd comparison. What does a statement about a fundamental law of physics which you can't change have to do with a statement about what you are doing, where you are perfectly free to do something else than you say? Try some variations. I deny that I've ever been to Vienna; is it

Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread Werner Koch
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 15:39, d...@fifthhorseman.net said: So gpg's behavior seems to be non-uniform here. That said, i'd love to be able to tell gpg to ignore or explicitly reject signatures made by strong keys with MD5 digests. There is a new option in master: --allow-weak-digest-algos

Re: Multiple Subkey Pairs

2014-03-17 Thread Martin Behrendt
Am 17.03.2014 17:54, schrieb Robert J. Hansen: That is an odd comparison. What does a statement about a fundamental law of physics which you can't change have to do with a statement about what you are doing, where you are perfectly free to do something else than you say? Try some

Re: Re: Can't check signature, DSA key 9C973C92 requires a 256 bit or larger hash

2014-03-17 Thread Juha Heljoranta
On Monday, March 17, 2014 10:39:58 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: Perhaps the folks who publish zinc need to --enable-dsa2, or to remove any mistaken digest-algo sha1 from their signing routines? You could point them at this thread in the gnupg-users archives if you think it would be useful.