I added "disable-ccid" to scdaemon.conf and gpg now works
even though pcscd is running. Thanks for the help.
Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
nked against
libpthread.so.0 but the failing one is linked against libnpth.so.0, but that
seems to have to do with locking which I wouldn't expect to make difference
with a simple local test.
I was hoping to bisect to the problem except that the 2.3 and
nked against
libpthread.so.0 but the failing one is linked against libnpth.so.0, but that
seems to have to do with locking which I wouldn't expect to make difference
with a simple local test.
I was hoping to bisect to the problem except that the 2.3 and
> On Feb 15, 2022, at 2:45 PM, Andrew Gallagher wrote:
>
>
>> On 15 Feb 2022, at 21:46, Dan Mahoney (Gushi) via Gnupg-users
>> wrote:
>>
>> Since the debacle a few years ago with the SKS keyserver denial-of-service
>> attack, the keyservers
n@ key into our keyring is not helpful either, unless we "faked it"
by attempting to encrypt a message to that address, then discarded it.
Is there another way forward? The normal things for auto-key-locate don't
seem to help here. I'm open to ideas.
-Dan
(PS: on gnupg.
I was on Amazon Smile today and noticed quite a few FOSS projects were
available to select as the source of my amazon shopping proceeds.
Also thought that registering gnupg.org, gpg4win.org and g10code.com
in the Brave Rewards program might be an interesting way to allow
GnuPG to accept small concu
Thanks, I checked the following per your advice
1. Are any of the certs ECC?
No, they all appear to be RSA keys.
2. Has the org root cert been imported?
I believe so, yes. There are three certs in the chain. My s/MIME
cert, it's parent, and its "grandparent". Both gpgsm and the Windows
Cert
So I work for a large company that has their own internal CA and
maintains their own set of S/MIME certificates. We periodically have
to re-enroll in S/MIME and import the certificate into Microsoft
Outlook to have encrypt / sign functionality. This time when I
enrolled for my recent certificate,
but even just matching 14.04's
would make sense to a lot of people.
Also, gnupg.org should add a web page like
https://www.gnupg.org/release-end-of-life
that lays out the EOL for all released versions;
the only one with a clear EOL is 2.0.x, and that's a bit buried in
text on the front page.
- Dan
3 to 6 months)?
That would avoid poking classic users in the eye too hard,
and give time for them to get used to the idea.
- Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
t
consider unticking it.)
- Dan
On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> [taps the mike]
>
> Hi. I maintain the official GnuPG FAQ. So let me start off by
> answering a question that is certainly about to be asked a lot: "Should
> we be worried about Ope
n repositories for four redhat-ish distros and
two debian-ish distros; on Ubuntu, I was able to walk down the
path of using it a bit, looks a bit rusty, but see
https://github.com/OpenSCAP/scap-security-guide
So it doesn't seem to be RHEL-only. (They
its a lot easier
than building the latest gnupg release yourself...
and is less likely to break things.
- Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
happy with, but
it was only temporary as we don't require an interactive passphrase
following key creation.
On 1 February 2018 at 05:00, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On Mon 2018-01-29 15:44:56 +1300, Dan Horne wrote:
> > Has someone got a workaround? I need to be able to use "su&
Hi
I'm using GnuPG 2.0.29 on Solaris. This specific version is being used
because it's the only one we could get installed and working.
I'm trying to generate keys from a user I have su'd to, but I get the
following error:
gpg-agent[23024]: command get_passphrase failed: Permission denied
gpg:
Hi
I'm using GnuPG 2.0.29 on Solaris. This specific version is being used
because it's the only one we could get installed and working.
I'm trying to generate keys from a user I have su'd to, but I get the
following error:
gpg-agent[23024]: command get_passphrase failed: Permission denied
gpg:
On Sat, Jan 20, 2018 at 4:08 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> I think that's https://dev.gnupg.org/T2290
Thanks.
Say, anyone know how to get bug tracker problems resolved?
Somehow my email address there lacks a dot before .com,
so I can't get confirmation
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 7:58 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
>> The keys referred to via signed-by are the only acceptable keys for the
>> associated apt repo.
>>
>> does that make sense?
>
> That'd be great if it worked. Since it's hard to explain what's bro
via signed-by are the only acceptable keys for the
> associated apt repo.
>
> does that make sense?
That'd be great if it worked. Since it's hard to explain what's broken
without a simple script showing exactly what I'm doing, let's just
hold that thought until I
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> Here's the bit where it explodes,
>
> + sudo GNUPGHOME=/tmp/obs_localbuild_gpghome_dank.tmp
> APT_CONFIG=/home/dank/src/obs/foo.tmp/etc/apt.conf apt-get -q -q
> update
> inside VerifyGetSigners
> Preparing to exec:
apt-key
works, or just plain being dumb. My next move
is probably reading apt-key and trying to
understand it. Alternately, I could
try ripping out all the gpg1 support in my scripts.
That probably won't help, but would be satisfying :-)
- Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 8:31 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> On Tue 2018-01-16 20:10:38 -0800, Dan Kegel wrote:
> > When I try to use gpg to manipulate secure apt repositories in the
> > real world, my head explodes.
>
> hi there! what kind of manipulation are yo
ures will probably not be backported
> * if you need 1.4 support, contact g10 Code GmbH
Thanks.
When I try to use gpg to manipulate secure apt repositories in the
real world, my head explodes.
I'm sure it will all seem reasonable after I figure things out.
I've only been at i
fact that even the latest apt
from debian does not support version 2's keybox format, so I had
to drop back to gpg version 1 anyway.
Is version 1 going to remain available, I hope? Version 2 simply
seems a poor fit for scripting.
Thanks,
Dan
___
G
solve?
I'm curious, too.
It sure makes scripting hard.
- Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Thanks. I exported my keys to ~/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg. I tried gpgv2 but
got the following
bash-3.2$ gpgv2 declaration.pgp
gpgv: verify signatures failed: Unexpected error
Adding --verbose did not affect this (Note this is a OpenCSW install)
However, if I simply decrypt the file I get confirmat
e data, usually by long key
> ID IIRC. You have to make sure the key that signed the data is the key that
> you expect, basically. If you need something more in-depth, there are many
> more qualified individuals to assist on the list.
>
> On October 26, 2017 7:52:33 PM EDT, Dan Ho
Thanks - I get the line saying "good signature" i n my message, but are you
saying that I have to grep the output for the message and the email address
of the encryptor?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/lis
Hi all
maybe I'm missing something, but how do I verify not only that an encrypted
file is signed, but that it is signed by the party I expect to have signed
it? In other words, if two parties can supply a file with the same name I
want to make sure that when I think I'm dealing with a file from p
mated test
that sometimes fails on slow systems like raspberry pi because of my
poor transparent wrapper around the gpg agent.
It is somewhat obscured by site-specific stuff (e.g. it uses gpg via apt).
I could try to do a clean demo without apt sometime if that would be helpful.
- Dan
__
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 2:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor
wrote:
> GnuPG upstream developers tend to recommend the use of GPGME for system
> integration projects that require a stable interface.
dpkg does that, but it doesn't help people trying to automate dpkg
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root bin58004 Jul 11 2011
/opt/csw/bin/pinentry-curses
It still doesn't work
After a bit more Googling, I tried adding the following to my gpg.conf
file, but it caused a syntax error:
pinentry-program /opt/csw/bin/pinentry-curses
Any advice
il/058158.html
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-April/058162.html
describe my travails. It was several days of learning curve. In fairness,
I needed a solution that worked with all versions of gpg that shipped
with any LTS version of ubuntu, not just the current release, which
made things
Did you see my walkthrough of all the problems I ran into while
getting gpg to not prompt?
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-April/058158.html
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-April/058162.html
That's for Linux, but it might still have a trick you're missing.
_
chmod +x test-script.sh
rm -rf /tmp/gpgtest-*
export GNUPGHOME=$(mktemp -d /tmp/gpgtest-XXX.tmp)
echo "allow-loopback-pinentry" > $GNUPGHOME/gpg-agent.conf
gpg-agent --daemon ./test-script.sh
rm -rf $GNUPGHOME
-- snip --
On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:14 PM, Dan Kegel wrote:
> tl;
tl;dr: anyone know what's up with --debug-quick-random? Also, handy
script for unattended key generation across many versions of gpg.
Hi all. This topic has been beaten to death on many forums and in many
bug reports, but here's a user report from the field that sums up what
works. It's mostly
ome/xyz/pinentry-mac.app/Contents/MacOS/pinentry-mac
>
> -Patrick
>
> On 29.08.15 19:13, Dan Bryant wrote:
>> OK, this worked in getting the binaries extracted and by setting PATH
>> and DYNLD_LIBRARY_PATH I can get the bins to load and dump version
>> information... SUCCESS..
, libexecdir with gpgconf
(gpgconf.conf) but I can't seem to figure out how to convice gpg to
look in nonstandard paths for binaries and libraries. Seems to be
ignoring PATH environment.
Suggestions?
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:31 AM, Patrick Brunschwig
wrote:
> On 26.08.15 17:16, Dan Bryant wro
, Dan Bryant wrote:
> I have a monitored OS X laptop that I would like to put GNU Privacy
> Guard (gpg) on. Of course I can't because I don't have Admin rights,
> but I was hoping there is a way to install it in user space through a
> virtual environment or chroot, or some
I have a monitored OS X laptop that I would like to put GNU Privacy
Guard (gpg) on. Of course I can't because I don't have Admin rights,
but I was hoping there is a way to install it in user space through a
virtual environment or chroot, or some other wizardry, or by exacting
the package files.
Ob
*SOLVED*
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:12 AM, Dan Bryant wrote:
> OK... I'm apparently suffering from a bad gpgsm setup. According to
> the 2011 post
> (https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2011-March/025989.html)
> the following command, should just work:
>gpg
OK... I'm apparently suffering from a bad gpgsm setup. According to
the 2011 post
(https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2011-March/025989.html)
the following command, should just work:
gpgsm --gen-key | gpgsm --import
Not for me... I get
gpgsm: problem looking for existing certific
xt: 281.760.4296
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 9:22 PM, Dan Bryant wrote:
> OK... I found some very old posts about this... don't know how much still
> holds.
> -- https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2011-June/026126.html
>
> This guide says:
> 1. Convert rootCA.pem t
2.2.4)
- gpgsm (GnuPG) 2.1.3
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 3:07 PM, Dan Bryant wrote:
> TL;DR: gpgsm import fails with "no issuer found in certificate"
>
> I'm trying to generate a key-pair for GnuPG S/MINE strictly for
> instructional reasons. I'll concede that I'm u
TL;DR: gpgsm import fails with "no issuer found in certificate"
I'm trying to generate a key-pair for GnuPG S/MINE strictly for
instructional reasons. I'll concede that I'm using a weak CA, but I'm
trying to image how the CA maintainers do this task as well. So, for my
instruction, I'm trying to
are and must be shared amongst providers plus
the providers' paymasters, and on and on. That these are possible
is worrisome; that they are widely built into services which promise
"convenience" is the Pied Piper institutionalized. As I wrote
elsewhere(*), we are becoming a society of infor
short, I have
nowhere to hide from you.
This being the gnupg list, we are likely now in a rat hole, but if
we are not yet there, then let me ask a question: Many's the member
of this list who posts under a pseudonym. Is pseudonymous postin
n everything, does not the very concept of private
information fade, per se? I believe it does.
We Are All Intelligence Officers Now
http://geer.tinho.net/geer.rsa.28ii14.txt
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg
mobile phone.
Small sample,...
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
, so why
would anyone ever render HTML e-mail at all?
Apologies,
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Hauke Laging wrote:
Am Fr 03.01.2014, 01:14:22 schrieb Dan Mahoney, System Admin:
It basically works perfectly with gpg1, where I can get an inline
prompt for a password, but gpg2 falls short where it tries to set up
some kind of a unix-socket connection to a pinentry
On Fri, 3 Jan 2014, Hauke Laging wrote:
Am Fr 03.01.2014, 01:14:22 schrieb Dan Mahoney, System Admin:
It basically works perfectly with gpg1, where I can get an inline
prompt for a password, but gpg2 falls short where it tries to set up
some kind of a unix-socket connection to a pinentry
G had some method of simply saying "hey, I
can't find a place to spawn this pinentry, and could exit cleanly."
Thoughts are welcome.
-Dan
--
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site: http://www.gushi.org
---
s only 3.43, as found in
Bakhshandeh, Samadi, Azimifar & Schaeffer,
"Degrees of Separation in Social Networks," 2011
http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/SOCS/SOCS11/paper/view/4031
"Allowed three hops" is closer to a grand mal seizure than a twitch.
For a sideline, look up "p
the
compiler.
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
#x27;t get sold. but
> given that rigorous testing of the TRNG circuit
> is so expensive, it's my guess that the CPU
> vendor surely must just unwittingly ship the
> CPUs that happen to have obscurely bad TRNGs.
--dan
___
Gnupg
this a blocking factor for moving to 2.0.
When 1.4 support ends, expect an EOL date to be announced far in advance
and a lot of help given to people who need to migrate to 2.0.
See above.
-Dan
--
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144
Turing-Complete
language which characteristic, if I need to say it,
means that security, a variant of the halting problem,
is formally undecideable.
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
d also vote for the
list having a "reply-to" header.
The above applies to all mailing lists, including here.
I can cope; this is just my ask.
Please and thank you,
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.o
://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&options=mr&search=0xE19DAA50&exact=on
This is totally unacceptable in my opinion, why do we have such broken
infrastructure that it cannot support a simple lookup like this?
-Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
or is it documented elsewhere?
>
> Read section 4.2 of RFC-4880. The length header encoding is a bit
> complicate.
The pgpdump source code may be a bit more easy to grasp if you just
want to understand the file format.
http://www.mew.org/~kazu/proj/pgpdump/en/
-Dan
_
eir doors
> condemning Total Information Awareness and EFF stickers on their laptops.
>
You got that right, Brother.
To be more pointed, how many folks on this list carry a cell phone?
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
e the
machine. The only operation it will ever be used in is lsigning
various other public keys.
-Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
anagement program like Keepass
makes transfer via the clipboard easy and relatively safe (clearing it
after 10 seconds), so that doesn't sound like the safety of "no
passphrase at all".
-Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 5:04 PM, David Shaw wrote:
> On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Dan McGee wrote:
>
>> I wanted to test behavior of an application with an expired signature,
>> but using `--ask-sig-expire` don't seem to be granular enough. The
>> minimum I can s
cimal values are not accepted, nor seconds,
minutes, or hours.
-Dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
see a reasonable and secure workflow
for this? I did suggest [2] signing package hashes as one possible
option, after looking into agent forwarding and discovering that
doesn't seem to be a workable option at this point.
-Dan
[1] http://www.archlinux.org/packages/community/i686/sage-mathema
ngine, and thus change
> the executable program and configuration directory to be used. You can
> make these changes the default or set them for some contexts
> individually.
>
> -- Function: gpgme_error_t gpgme_set_engine_info
Yes, we are doing this already and are setting the hom
o run with --lock-never in a
read-only mode?
Any feedback is welcome, thanks in advance!
-Dan
$ sudo gpg --homedir /etc/pacman.d/gnupg --verify
/home/makepkg/packages/libmysqlclient-5.5.12-1-x86_64.pkg.tar.xz.sig
gpg: WARNING: unsafe permissions on homedir `/etc/pacman.d/gnupg'
gpg: Signature
mean). As it happens, everyone I call
assumes it is me as I am the only one who chooses that.
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
ictly speaking) possible a hundred years ago, but also extr
> emely unrealistic.
The "23andme.com" folks claim that their genetic screening
thing is liberating people by connecting them to relatives
that they did not know they had.
I, for one, have a lot of relatives that I don&#
s. May I borrow this and
| present it to others (with attribution)?
Yes, of course.
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
correct.
My own definition of privacy evolves, but as of now is this:
Privacy is the effective capacity to misrepresent oneself.
and, semi-orthogonally,
Security is the absence of unmitigatable surprise.
YMMV,
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing
ant. If
zero-summed-ness is an actual fact of nature, then I'll choose
more privacy and less security as the Internet-of-Things approaches.
--dan
A conservative is a socialist who worships order.
A liberal is a socialist who worships safety.
I don't think anyone was suggesting that adroit use of
PGP/GPG is a talisman against those who wield lead pipes
and want what they want. Not that there isn't a movie
script in that line of thought...
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
G
|
| 2. Randomly send messages that can't be decrypted to random recipients
|to obscure matters. The adversary would have to cope with the fact
|that I have stuff to hide. :)
|
Ah. Spam as a covert channel. Tell me that this isn't already do
If one is a purist, then one wants sign>encrypt>sign
See http://world.std.com/~dtd/#sign_encrypt
--dan
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
bject appear to be quite scarce, I come to
you, O list. If anyone can clarify or elaborate on the security
considerations of CAST-128, it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Dan
[1]http://www.springerlink.com/content/978-3-642-04158-7/
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (Mi
you have any further information, want to correct or otherwise
comment on the above, feel free.
Regards,
Dan
[1]http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/ss/sec-key/sec-key.htm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mo
On 13/10/2010 4:02 PM, MFPA wrote:
> The user can type their password once per session into a text file and
> paste it every time it is requested. This reduces the annoyance factor
> and does not train the user to constantly re-type the passphrase.
>
I use a program called KeePass to keep track of
Hi everyone,
Almost-but-not-quite my first post to this list. I am very interested
in encryption technologies, and PGP in particular. Of course, this is
only a hobby and I don't have any trade secrets or international
intrigues to protect, so that leaves me at a bit of a disadvantage when
it com
ay in fact do this, but
--search does not.
Is there a way to make that work?
--
"Ca. Tas. Tro. Phy."
-John Smedley, March 28th 1998, 3AM
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Site:
verifying selfsigs before publication, or do you think they
should remain "dumb"? Both imply some problems, but your statement as to
keyservers not doing crypto didn't seem to imply whether you're for or
against it, and I'm curious.
-Dan
--
Dan Mahoney
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 27, 2010, at 7:50 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It's effectively a no-op though, as no server supports it.
I'm looking into making mods to at least one server type (we run one
locally at work), and commit them upstream. If I&
as
simply a "keyservers should throw this away" flag, where a user might
choose to publish on his website, his .plan file, on his business cards,
in DNS, or via LDAP or S/Mime autodiscovery.)
-Dan
--
"Hitler, Satan, those Hanson kids, anything. Just not the curious
anteate
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 27, 2010, at 3:58 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
All,
How difficult would it be to propose some kind of extension flag to the PGP key format
that in essence says "don't publish me to a keyserver". Note that I'm aski
ikesheds here).
My question is: Is it possible to do in such a way that keys would be
backward-compatible?
(I have no idea about the internal format of a PGP key, to me it's just
bricktext...at least right now).
-Dan
--
"If you aren't going to try something, then we might as wel
re I sit.)
Is there some reasonable way that gpg can detect that it has a controlling
termainal (or even, a config file option) and just ask me for my
passphrase on stdin?
I am my sysadmin. I trust me :)
-Dan
--
"Let me tell you something about regrowing your dead wife Lucy, Harry.
I
useful to specify
servers you know don't synchronise reliably, when posting revocations.
Considering I'm running on a FreeBSD system, however...
-Dan
--
"It would be bad."
-Egon Spengler, "Ghostbusters"
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Hey all,
Is there an easy syntax to chain multiple keyservers for searching? In
theory it shouldn't be necessary, but there are distinct keyserver
networks out there that don't share, as well as "private" hkp keyservers
which might need to be searched first.
-Dan
-
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
The first is PGP corporation's "global directory&q
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, David Shaw wrote:
On Jun 22, 2010, at 11:02 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
It seems there's two interesting problems which inter-relate.
The first is PGP corporation's "global directory", which seems to
operate orthogonally from every other
.
Finally, it will sign your non-photo-uids. With a very short signature
time, and pollute them so they look like this:
uid Dan Mahoney
sig 3E919EC51 2008-11-22 Dan Mahoney
sig 3E8048D08 2009-10-15 Peter Losher
sig 68D482E2 2009-08-31 Guy Sisalli
s
On Tue, 22 Jun 2010, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
On 6/22/10 10:09 PM, Dan Mahoney, System Admin wrote:
Is this very old and it's now supported? Or is it still not in for some
other reason (either oversight, legal, or other).
By modern standards, IDEA is not considered a promising cipher.
g/documentation/faqs.en.html#q3.3)
Is this very old and it's now supported? Or is it still not in for some
other reason (either oversight, legal, or other).
- -Dan
- --
- Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM
.
-Dan
--
"Don't be so depressed dear."
"I have no endorphins, what am I supposed to do?"
-DM and SK, February 10th, 1999
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmin, WebGeek
Gushi on efnet/undernet IRC
ICQ: 13735144 AIM: LarpGM
Si
= 127
configure:3596: checking for C compiler default output file name
It seems, I need to install C compiler by installing SPROcc 9(unbundled
SPARCworks Professional C compiler)
Please advise on this.
Thanks,
Raj
You could just install gcc.
-Dan
--
"Blargy Frap!"
-mtreal, ef
By Jeremy Kirk, IDG News Service
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/195217/symantec_buys_encryption_specialist_pgp_for_300m.html
Symantec will acquire encryption specialist PGP and endpoint security
vendor GuardianEdge Technologies for US$300 million and $70 million
respectively, the
:
Researchers who had physical enough access to be able to rewire the
private-key-holder's system's power supply were able to compromise that
system.
If you're at that point, I don't think key length is your problem.
-Dan Mahoney
--
Dan Mahoney
Techie, Sysadmi
02 redirects before
you actually get to the file. It wouldn't be totally unsurprising to me
if a series of redirects caused problems.
So, if you're interested in comparing apples to apples, for curiosity I
just uploaded your pubkey (sean.pubkey.txt) to the same url as
danm.pubkey.txt)
1 - 100 of 161 matches
Mail list logo
