On Wed 2020-05-27 20:42:45 +, halfdog wrote:
> I just noticed that gpgv2 packaged for Debian does not include
> the "gpgsplit" and "pgpdump" tools any more.
pgpdump was never part of GnuPG, it ships in its own package.
The gnupg-utils package contains /usr/bin/gpgsplit.
For more detailed
Peter Lebbing writes:
> On 28/05/2020 06:20, halfdog wrote:
>> Using a signing key per source seems to be impractical here
>> too as it would also require to transfer the whole file beforehand
>> for signature verification.
>
> What about solving your entire use-case with an explicit two-step
>
karel-v_g--- via Gnupg-users wrote:
> Hello!
> The German translation should be "Aufsichtsbehörde" (or even better
> "Rechtsfähige Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts"). In fact I don't know
> the exact translation and didn't find any appropriate in
> Google-Translate or deepl. So "supervising
Hello!
The German translation should be "Aufsichtsbehörde" (or even better
"Rechtsfähige Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts"). In fact I don't know the exact
translation and didn't find any appropriate in Google-Translate or deepl. So
"supervising authorities" was my best guess without being a
Hello!
Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote in
<875zcgtizp@wheatstone.g10code.de>:
|On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:35, Steffen Nurpmeso said:
|> Fatal: no entropy gathering module detected
|
|Which version of libgcrypt is that and what build options were used?
Oh, sorry. That is on CRUX-Linux
On Tue, 26 May 2020 15:35, Steffen Nurpmeso said:
> Fatal: no entropy gathering module detected
Which version of libgcrypt is that and what build options were used?
Salam-Shalom,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
signature.asc
Description: PGP
halfdog wrote:
> Hello Stefan,
>
> Thanks for your helpful reply!
Hi halfdog,
you're welcome!
[...]
> As you seem to know about both gnupg and Sequoia, may I ask your
> opinion if it is possible to implement following use case with
> one of both?
I only started to use sequoia pgp as a
Hi,
On 28/05/2020 06:20, halfdog wrote:
> Using a signing key per source seems to be impractical here too as it
> would also require to transfer the whole file beforehand for signature
> verification.
What about solving your entire use-case with an explicit two-step
process:
There's an
