Pankaj Jangid writes:
> I faced the same issue when I started Emacs from virtual terminal
> window. But I do not get the issue when launching from directly GUI. I
> am on MacOS.
Even if you run emacs from a terminal emulator, as long as you are in a
GUI environment, then the gui pinentry
Phillip Susi writes:
> It was pinentry-curses. I tried switching to pinentry-tty and it rapes
> the tty even worse than the curses one. At least some keystrokes
> occasionally had some effect with the curses one. With This one nothing
> I hit would do anything. Couldn't get it t
Christian Chavez writes:
> Have you tried checking with update-alternatives which pinentry is default
> selected?
> I remember having to switch mine from pinentry-gnome to pinentry-tty on my
> machine (I don't use emacs though).
It was pinentry-curses. I tried switching to pinentry-tty and it
I have installed the pinetry module and run M-x pinentry-start, as well
as added allow-emacs-pinentry to ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf, yet whenever I
try signing an email in mu4e, pinentry gets into a fight with emacs over
the tty and everything goes all fscked up. Why is this? Why does
pinentry
Anil Kumar Pippalapalli via Gnupg-users writes:
> Hello,
> I am trying to encrypt a file on my system using gpg —encrypt command but it
> always creates a new encrypted file I want to overwrite the original file
> instead so that I can only open it using passphrase. Is this possible.
gpg
Werner Koch writes:
> authenticated encryption is different from signed and encrypted mails.
> There are relative easy attacks on the encryption layer if standard
> encryption modes like CBC (as in S/MIME) are used. Whether this really
> affects users is a different question but they can be
Werner Koch via Gnupg-users writes:
> Still, TB is still subject to those attacks because their primary
> encryption protocol is S/MIME and the last time I checked S/MIME (well,
> CMS for the nitpickers) does not supoport any kind of authenticated
> encryption. In contarst OpenPGP provides
Andreas Boehlk writes:
> I do not agree with this one. IMHO the verification with a trusted GPG-Key is
> absolutely sufficiant and the checksum-proof is not needed at all.
True, since validating the signature means validating the secure hash of
the contents. That is, the checkum is reisistant
Philipp Klaus Krause writes:
> While having OpenPGP support directly in Thunderbird is probably a good
> thing, I found it convenient to just use the gpg kerys for Email
> encryption and signing (and conversely, being able to just use keys
> imported via Enigmail to encrypt files using gpg).
>
Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users writes:
> So what? If the goal is private communication, ProtonMail and Tutanota
> are nearly effortless ways to achieve it. Sign up for a free account
How do you figure that? If they aren't encrypting mail then how is it
private? Or or is it using some other
Jeff Allen via Gnupg-users writes:
> The original poster, perhaps unintentionally, stated the real reason the
> masses have not adopted PGP, "Please do appreciate that the persons who
> we are convincing and instructing are not particularly interested in
> privacy." That's it in a nutshell.
David Milet writes:
> To answer suggestions in other replies, our developers are savvy enough, and
> we do have recurring training in place to stress the importance of good
> passwords. But we know also that some developers will choose the weakest
> password the system allows, making them the
On 3/8/2019 2:05 PM, john doe wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm considering working on a project that has only for now a couple of
> developers.
> As part of that project everything that will be released will need to be
> gpg signed.
>
> What is the best way forward?
> - One signing key accessible on the
On 6/21/2018 10:41 PM, NIIBE Yutaka wrote:
> Basically, secring.gpg only has the information of expiration when it's
> created. After changing expiration, it is only recorded in pubring.gpg.
> So, it is recommended to do somthing like:
Makes sense.
>$ gpg --homedir ~/.gnupg.old
date, but then I extended it. gpg
2.1 seems to be failing to recognize the extension.
On 6/21/2018 11:27 AM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Ok, so if I checkout and build 2.0.31, remove ~/.gnupg, and import my
> keyring, all of my private keys show up. If I check out and build 2.1.1
> and run /
: porting secret keys from '/home/psusi/.gnupg/secring.gpg' to gpg-agent
gpg: key A70FB705: secret key imported
gpg: migration succeeded
/home/psusi/.gnupg/pubring.gpg
--
sec# rsa2048/A70FB705 2011-12-13
uid [ unknown] Phillip Susi
uid [ unknown] Phillip Susi
On 6/19/2018 3:05 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> gpg keeps telling me that I have no secret key. Even after I deleted
> the .gnupg directory and copied the pubring and secring from another
> computer where it works, this system keeps saying I have no secret keys.
> Why does it keep thr
On 6/20/2018 1:52 PM, Phillip Susi wrote:
> I cloned the git repo and checked out gnupg-2.2.4, ran ./autogen.sh,
> ./configure, then when I try to make, it is apparently missing some files:
>
> make[2]: Entering directory '/home/psusi/gnupg/common'
> make[2]: *** No rule to mak
I cloned the git repo and checked out gnupg-2.2.4, ran ./autogen.sh,
./configure, then when I try to make, it is apparently missing some files:
make[2]: Entering directory '/home/psusi/gnupg/common'
make[2]: *** No rule to make target 'audit-events.h', needed by 'all'.
Stop.
What gives?
\AppData\Roaming\gnupg>gpg --version
gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.28 (Gpg4win 2.2.5)
C:\Users\psusi\AppData\Roaming\gnupg>gpg -K
C:/Users/psusi/AppData/Roaming/gnupg/secring.gpg
sec# 2048R/A70FB705 2011-12-13
uid Phillip Sus
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
We used to use different keys for signing and encrypting ( DSA El
Gammel ), but these days just seem to use a single RSA key by default.
Is it still possible and/or beneficial to use two separate subkeys
for signing and encrypting?
-BEGIN PGP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 08/12/2014 03:05 PM, Werner Koch wrote:
On Tue, 12 Aug 2014 19:50, ps...@ubuntu.com said:
We used to use different keys for signing and encrypting ( DSA
El Gammel ), but these days just seem to use a single RSA key by
default.
That is not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
I keep a subkey pair for daily use that I keep a copy of on my work
machine, and reissue each yea and the master key only at home. I
would like to protect the master key with a password that is different
from that used on the daily use subkey, but
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 3/12/2014 9:07 AM, Kumar, Vikash X wrote:
Hi Team,
Could you please help me to understand the following query.
We are using gpg encryption method for encryption and decryption
in our application. We have generated the keypairs on server A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
So my old subkeys are about to expire so I created some new ones at
home and exported them with --export-secret-subkeys. When I try to
import them at work, gpg just says I already have that key and stops.
Why isn't it merging the new subkeys? I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 12/10/2013 06:27 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 12/10/2013 12:42 PM, Phillip Susi wrote: | So my old subkeys are
about to expire so I created some new ones
Why are you creating new ones instead of simply extending the
expiry of the existing ones
I would like to keep the private portion of my primary key stored
offline and use an expiring secondary key for day to day signing. To
accomplish this I have tried backing up the key after creating the
secondary signing key, then attempting to delete the private portion of
the primary key
On 3/1/2010 1:57 PM, David Shaw wrote:
What you need to do is an --export-secret-subkeys (there is no such command as
--delete-primary-keys). So, starting from a state where your whole key
(primary and all secondaries) are all imported to your GPG instance, do:
Yes, I meant
On 3/1/2010 3:37 PM, David Shaw wrote:
This does the trick, but I still do not understand why
--delete-secret-key removes BOTH the primary and subkey secrets
when I specifically gave only the ID of the subkey? Shouldn't it
remove exactly what I say and no more?
It has to do with how keys are
29 matches
Mail list logo
