On Thu, Mar 2, 2023 at 5:31 AM David Joaquín Shourabi Porcel
wrote:
>
> //snip
>
> I have experienced only one limitation: there is no convenient way for
> systemd to manage background processes for [ephemeral home directories][7],
> which I have been using extensively for my research & testing.
On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Binarus wrote:
> On 11.07.2017 20:38, MFPA wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Tuesday 11 July 2017 at 8:44:48 AM, in
> > , Binarus wrote:-
> >
> >
> >> I am not sure if this is an intentional limitation of
> >> the cards (to
> >> prevent users from choosing idiotic pins like 1
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:52 AM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
>
> Nowadays some German banks allow changing the PIN in the Teller
> Machines. I saw it today in an ATM of the Sparkasse. Amex allows (or
> allowed) requesting a new personal PIN by fax.
>
> Interesting ... Just closed my Sparkasse account s
On Tue, Jul 11, 2017 at 1:38 AM, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>
> ... and that would very often be either 1234[56] or the card owner's
> date of birth as we all know. A random 4-digit PIN randomly chosen by
> the bank is certainly safer than this.
>
> Yes, that's true.
> German banks require you to dest
This is probably a general question --
I have never seen a German bank that allows changing the PIN of a card.
So I wonder if it is because using a fixed (non-changeable) 4-digit PIN
mailed in clear text really safer than using a 4 to 6 digit variable length
PIN that never explicitly appears anywh
On Sun, Dec 18, 2016 at 12:27 AM, Helmut Waitzmann wrote:
>
> As this problem is more one of split/dd/shell than of gpg, how
> about discussing this in the usenet group “comp.unix.shell” rather
> than in the “gnupg-users” mailinglist?
>
Actually there is reason to discuss it here because the orig
On Wed, Aug 31, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Dimitrova Elena
wrote:
> Dear GnuPG mailing list,
>
> I have just downloaded GnuPG and I intend to use it for signing private
> metadata files. The signing process will happen through calling:
>
> gpg --clearsign < ~/…./…./name_of_file.txt > name_of_file_signed.t
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 5:45 AM, zhaolinghui
wrote:
> ...
>
>
>
> the log as below is appeared
>
> “gpgconf: error while loading shared libraries: libgcrypt.so.20: cannot
> open shared object file: No such file or directory.”
>
>
>
Have you run ldconfig after installation?
Guan
_
/he's
replying
is absurd and insulting, which is definitely worse than not following the
top posting rule of the mailing list.
This is my concluding remark of this thread.
Guan
On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Friday, April 29, 2016 a las 04:35:40PM +0
or front or rear posting.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 7:38 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Thursday, April 28, 2016 a las 02:28:56PM +0200, Guan Xin escribió:
>
> > Your feeling is basically wrong.
>
> Here comes the proofing example you asked for:
>
> https://lists.la
This post is an example to prove that your feeling is wrong.
Show your examples now.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Thursday, April 28, 2016 a las 11:02:30AM +0200, Paolo Bolzoni
> escribió:
>
> I have the feeling (and even could proof this with examples) that
Your feeling is basically wrong.
On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 11:26 AM, Matthias Apitz wrote:
> El día Thursday, April 28, 2016 a las 11:02:30AM +0200, Paolo Bolzoni
> escribió:
>
> I have the feeling (and even could proof this with examples) that top
> posters do not even read about what they are po
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 7:44 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
>
> Exactly. FWIW, We do the same for all incoming mail. It was my fault
> that I had not explicitly assigned the v6 address of lists.gnupg.org and
> so when I added a new v6 address that address was picked up and its
> reverse lookup showed g
Hi All,
All mails from gnupg-users are identified as spams by gmail since
yesterday. Google says that the mailing list "is in violation of Google's
recommended email sender guidelines".
Why does it happen? This is the first time that I see 100% false positive
of the gmail spam filter.
Guan
_
On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 10:12 AM, William Hay wrote:
> ...
> I'd like to replace it with a GNUPG 2.0.x compatible reader With a built
> in keypad that is silent (or can be
> configured to be so).
>
Cherry SmartTerminal ST-2000U or other readers that don't advertise
"Buzzer" in their datasheets.
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 8:19 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> IF YOU THINK DIGITAL SIGNATURES ARE NOTHING
>> THEN PLEASE KEEP AWAY FROM THIS MAILING LIST.
>
> A digital signature means surprisingly little.
It's a kind of weak proof in China, and is much more than nothing.
I have absolutely no idea
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 03/10/15 14:04, Guan Xin wrote:
>> What happened to being guilty once proven guilty until
>> proven innocent?
>> Your key is the proof.
>
> Please stop trolling.
>
> Peter.
"Please don't feed th
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 03/10/15 14:04, Guan Xin wrote:
>> What happened to being guilty once proven guilty until
>> proven innocent?
>> Your key is the proof.
>
> Please stop trolling.
>
> Peter.
YOU who insist that digital
On Sat, Oct 3, 2015 at 1:33 PM, MFPA
<2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
>> So you three will share the same reputation on the
>> mailing list.
>
> No, their reputations and posting histories did not become merged.
The word "will" does not infer history. You know by reputation
I mea
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 7:01 AM, Anthony Papillion
wrote:
>
> Sorry to just jump in here but I've been following the conversation
> and this caught my eye. While checking the email address associated
> with a key might not /always/ be useful (like in the case of IM, fax,
> etc), it /can/ help provi
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
> Some years ago a user on PGP-Basics was irate over how I refused to sign
> my messages. My argument was basically the one you were using: that
> nobody on the list had verified my identity and that made my signatures
> of marginal use.
On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:52 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> Please respond on-list; I generally don't like answering questions off-list.
Sorry, was too sleepy last night and did not click on "Reply to all".
> So if ECC falls, well -- so will RSA.
Ok quite clear, that means if RSA falls, so had
On Mon, Sep 28, 2015 at 11:53 AM, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
>
> Are there any updated how-to for gpg2? Should I continue to use gpg command
> everywhere?
For docs of gpg2, check e.g. "/usr/doc/gnupg2-2.0.29" and "info gnupg".
Guan
___
Gnupg-users mailing
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:57 AM, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
>
> Thanks. Timeout should be more than 13 second. I'll use this value.
>
> Reference:
>
> ccid-1.4.20/src/ifdhandler.c:T1_card_timeout
Thanks for your informative help!
Good to know how it works besides getting it working.
Guan
_
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 9:29 AM, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
>
> I think that timeout for OpenPGPcard v2.1 would be different. If
> possible, could you please show us the ATR string of the card?
> It's in the debug log of scdaemon. It's like the like:
>
> ==
> slot 0: ATR
On Fri, Sep 11, 2015 at 3:11 AM, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
>
> I think that you are using some Unix Operating System. Could you try
> to use PC/SC service, by installing pcscd (and libccid)? If it works,
> I think that it's the issue of timeout management of internal CCID of
> GnuPG.
>
Hello NIIBE,
Hello,
I'm new to gpg. Just got a Cherry ST-2000U and OpenPGP card v2.1.
I can generate 1024-bit keys with the "generate" command of gpg2.
However, generation of 2048 or 4096-bit keys never succeed. The errors are:
... ... (snip)
Change (N)ame, (C)omment, (E)mail or (O)kay/(Q)uit? o
scdaemon[10116
ists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2014-February/049059.html
>
> [2]
> http://www.zeitcontrol.de/en/products/chip-cards/processor-chip-cards/basiccard
>
Thank you, Damien! Very helpful links. Everything is clear.
Guan
On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Damien Goutte-Gattat
wrote
Hi All,
(Not sure if this is the right list to discuss hardware.)
I've read "http://www.g10code.de/docs/openpgp-card-2.1.pdf";
but didn't find any information about its EEPROM size.
Anyone knows how large it is?
Thanks in advance!
Guan
___
Gnupg-user
29 matches
Mail list logo
