Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On 10/15/2017 11:55 PM, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote: > OK, > did this, and downloaded all of the dependent libraries to ./configure   > gnupg-2.2.1 > (...) > libtool: compile:  gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/local/include > -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -fvisibility=hidden -Wall -Wno-pointer-sign

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On 10/12/2017 at 3:18 AM, "Werner Koch" wrote: -Yes, you should get 1.7. And while you are already at it, you better -also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we -did since January 2016. = OK, did this, and downloaded all of the dependent libraries to ./config

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On 12/10/17 11:09, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 12/10/17 09:13, Werner Koch wrote: >> And while you are already at it, you better >> also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we >> did since January 2016. > > I think Vedaal is just using the gnupg2 package provided by Ubun

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On 12/10/17 09:13, Werner Koch wrote: > And while you are already at it, you better > also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we > did since January 2016. I think Vedaal is just using the gnupg2 package provided by Ubuntu 16.04 LTS: https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:56, ved...@nym.hush.com said: > londo@londo-earth-trinket:~$ gpg2 --verbose --verbose --version > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11 > libgcrypt 1.6.5 > > Should I get the new Libcrypt? Yes, you should get 1.7. And while you are already at it, you better also update to gpg 2.2.1. There a

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On 10/11/2017 at 2:33 AM, "Werner Koch" wrote:On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:26, ved...@nym.hush.com said: > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. You left out the line which tells the libgcrypt version numbers like in $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.1-beta1 lib

Re: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:26, ved...@nym.hush.com said: > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. You left out the line which tells the libgcrypt version numbers like in $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.1-beta1 libgcrypt 1.8.1 [...] Salam-Shalom, Wer

Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4

I recently got a new laptop, and installed Ubuntu 16.0.4 LTS and used the Ubuntu Software to install Kleopatra. Ubuntu 16.0.4 has GnuPG 1.4.20 installed by default. After installation, I tried to generate a keypair and could not. Here is what happened: =[begin quoted terminal]= p { marg

Re: Very slow symmetric encryption/decryption with GnuPG 2.X

> GnuPG 2.X the speed is many many times slower. This process is really slow, I For small files most time is spend on the KDF function to convert a passphrase into a key. With 1.4. you may be using an low iteration count but since 2.x we set the iteration count to a value which results in abo

Very slow symmetric encryption/decryption with GnuPG 2.X

Hello   I use a Bashscript for Cloud-Encryption-Purposes under Debian Testing. It uses GnuPG for symmetrically encryption of many files with a for loop. With GnuPG 1.4.20, the encryption/decryption runs always very fast on my machine, but with GnuPG 2.X the speed is many many times slower. This

Very slow symmetric encryption/decryption with GnuPG 2.X

Hello   I use a Bashscript for Cloud-Encryption-Purposes under Debian Testing. It uses GnuPG for symmetrically encryption of many files with a for loop. With GnuPG 1.4.20, the encryption/decryption runs always very fast on my machine, but with GnuPG 2.X the speed is many many times slower

Re: Public Key Algorithms - GnuPG 2.x lists fewer than GnuPG 1.x

On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 12:11, kristian.fiskerstr...@sumptuouscapital.com said: > Speaking of which, with libgcrypt 1.7.0 this has the fun variant of > (note the 3x RSA, without distinguishing -S and -E) be98b59 gpg: Do not show "MD5" and triplicated "RSA" in --version. Thanks, Werner -- Die

Re: Public Key Algorithms - GnuPG 2.x lists fewer than GnuPG 1.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 08/28/2014 11:57 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:27, 2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net > said: >> 1.4.16: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA >> >> 2.0.26: RSA, ELG, DSA >> >> Is this actually a change in what is supported, or ju

Re: Public Key Algorithms - GnuPG 2.x lists fewer than GnuPG 1.x

On Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:27, 2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net said: > 1.4.16: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA > > 2.0.26: RSA, ELG, DSA > > Is this actually a change in what is supported, or just how GnuPG > reports it? No. RSA-E and RSA-S are the same as RSA. They merely use different algor

Public Key Algorithms - GnuPG 2.x lists fewer than GnuPG 1.x

Hi I only just noticed that among the output of "gpg --version" I get different lists of supported public key algorithms between versions 1.4.16 and 2.0.26. 1.4.16: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA 2.0.26: RSA, ELG, DSA Is this actually a change in what is supported, or just how GnuPG reports it

Gpg4Win // GnuPG 2.x

Am using Gpg4win 2.2.1 /GnuPG 2.0.22 Did gpg --dump-options and noticed that the --faked-system-time option is not listed. Was this option removed? vedaal ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gn

OT: MFT and posting via gmane (was: Re: 2.x)

Hi there, I’m posting this via gmane with header “Mail-Copies-To: never”, which should be translated to an MFT header by Gmane (see http://gmane.org/post.php). From the Message manual: For instance, if you're running Gnus and wish to insert a `Mail-Copies-To' header in all your news articles and

Re: 2.x

>> "Jens" == Jens Lechtenboerger >> writes: > On So, Dez 22 2013, Uwe Brauer wrote: >> "Jens" == Jens Lechtenboerger >> > P.S. Do you know Mail-Followup-To (MFT)? >> Do you find this annoying? > MFT has benefits: If I reply to a message with MFT, the To header > is automatical

(OT) Mail-Followup-To or not? (was Re: 2.x)

On 22/12/13 19:36, Jens Lechtenboerger wrote: > Moreover, with MFT I know whether you would like to receive a separate > copy for replies or not. You could also interpret the absence of any headers indicating otherwise that the person might not care enough about that to set headers. My 2 cents,

Re: 2.x

On So, Dez 22 2013, Uwe Brauer wrote: > "Jens" == Jens Lechtenboerger >> P.S. Do you know Mail-Followup-To (MFT)? > > hm, I am reading this group via gmane (and news) I use simply > gnus-summary-followup-with-original which results in a mail > to Newsgroups: gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.user

Re: 2.x

>> "Tristan" == Tristan Santore writes: > On 22/12/13 17:24, Uwe Brauer wrote: "K" == K Raven writes: > You being German has nothing to do with the fact you can read it. I am > British, I can also read it. > ;-p Correct, but, being German :-D, it would have been very odd,

Re: 2.x

On 22/12/13 17:24, Uwe Brauer wrote: >>> "K" == K Raven writes: >> Hi, > >> I'm using Kubuntu (13.10) too and because many packets depend on gnupg, >> i use the Alternatives system to leave gnupg1 installed and use gnupg2 >> in parallel. You can see that on >>

Re: 2.x

>> "K" == K Raven writes: > Hi, > I'm using Kubuntu (13.10) too and because many packets depend on gnupg, > i use the Alternatives system to leave gnupg1 installed and use gnupg2 > in parallel. You can see that on > (in German

Re: 2.x

>> "Jens" == Jens Lechtenboerger >> writes: > On Sa, Dez 21 2013, Uwe Brauer wrote: >> I am on Kubuntu 10.04 and I have both gnupg and gnupg2 >> installed. Now since 2.x is not affected by the problem mentioned >> I prefer to use it. Ho

Re: 2.x

Hi, > On Sa, Dez 21 2013, Uwe Brauer wrote: > >> I am on Kubuntu 10.04 and I have both gnupg and gnupg2 installed. >> Now since 2.x is not affected by the problem mentioned I prefer to >> use it. However how can I be sure that gnupg2 is used for my email >> corr

Re: 2.x

On Sa, Dez 21 2013, Uwe Brauer wrote: > I am on Kubuntu 10.04 and I have both gnupg and gnupg2 installed. Now > since 2.x is not affected by the problem mentioned I prefer to use > it. However how can I be sure that gnupg2 is used for my email > correspondence for which I use pgp-

2.x (was: [Announce] [security fix] GnuPG 1.4.16 released)

sion 1.4.16. > This is a *security fix* release and all users of GnuPG versions 1.x are > advised to updated to this version. GnuPG versions 2.x are not > affected. See below for the impact of the problem. I am on Kubuntu 10.04 and I have both gnupg and gnupg2 installed. Now sin

Re: Libgcrypt 1.6.0 released and gunpg 2.x

IT version. > gnupg 2.x would not work with the new libgcrypt if i just install it > alone, would it ? (im sure i have to do it all again...) No you need to build gnupg again. Libgcrypt has a different ABI and thus a different SO number (20 on common Linux systems). Salam-Shalom,

Libgcrypt 1.6.0 released and gunpg 2.x

this looks like a significant upgrade if i have already compiled gnupg 2.x with libgcrypt 1.5.3, and i want to use the new 1.6.0, do i need to uninstall gnupg & libcrypt and then compile both again together, and re-install ? gnupg 2.x would not work with the new libgcrypt if i just instal

Re: gpg 2.x or gpg 1.x // is there a way to tell which one was used from the encrypted file?

On Fri, 24 May 2013 16:12, ved...@nym.hush.com said: > is there a way to tell whether the message was encrypted with gnupg 1.x or > 2.x, No. It might be possible to guess a specific version by looking at some packet details but that would be pretty fragile. OpenPGP defines what's

gpg 2.x or gpg 1.x // is there a way to tell which one was used from the encrypted file?

Assuming one does not use the version line in an armored gnupg encrypted message, is there a way to tell whether the message was encrypted with gnupg 1.x or 2.x, (Assume also that the receiver can decrypt the message.) I tried --list-packets with the highest verbose option, but no mention of

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

On Tue, 22 May 2012 17:29, avi.w...@gmail.com said: > That would be great! To close the loop, could the installer be > modified to ask if the current install is portable and then create > that file before the rest of the install to make it seamless? I am not keen to add yet another visible option

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

>On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Werner Koch wrote: On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:50, avi.w...@gmail.com said: > them temporarily each time if necessary. Allowing an option to have > the home and other helper directories configured as a subfolder of the > install directory on the install should

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

On Tue, 15 May 2012 16:50, avi.w...@gmail.com said: > them temporarily each time if necessary. Allowing an option to have > the home and other helper directories configured as a subfolder of the > install directory on the install should be helpful as well. What I I agree. We could do this. If

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:53, avi.w...@gmail.com said: > >> anything to work, as I am not able to figure out how to us gpgconf to >> switch sysconfdir to my stick's drive, and everything else is failing > > The directory is determined by looking a

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:53, avi.w...@gmail.com said: > anything to work, as I am not able to figure out how to us gpgconf to > switch sysconfdir to my stick's drive, and everything else is failing The directory is determined by looking at CSIDL_COMMON_APPDATA. It seems you can change the value by

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Werner Koch wrote: > With gpgconf it is even easier to do this with 2.x. There is no need > for a registry key for example. Obviously you need to set GNUPGHOME if > you don't want to use the default home directory. Thank you, Werner. I'

Re: GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

ore than 10 years old and 1.4 only 4 years older. I consider 2.0 more matured than 1.4. > Assuming that is the case, it means those of us using 1.4.x need > to move to 2.x to use ECC. In and of itself that shouldn't be an We try to make it as easy as possible. In 2.1 there is even

GPG 1.4.x, 2.x, ECC, and portability

ou confirm or refute that? Assuming that is the case, it means those of us using 1.4.x need to move to 2.x to use ECC. In and of itself that shouldn't be an issue. What concerns me is that, and perhaps this is due solely to ignorance, it appears to me that GnuPG 2.0 for Windows cannot be instal

Re: Easiest way to migrate from GPG 1.4.11 to 2.x?

On 09/18/2011 15:49, Faramir wrote: > Hello, > I've been a very happy user of 1.4.x branch for some years. Now > I'm thinking about moving to 2.x, which would mean GPG4Win. How do I > migrate my keyrings to 2.x? Simple copy/paste? No need to migrate anything at t

Easiest way to migrate from GPG 1.4.11 to 2.x?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Hello, I've been a very happy user of 1.4.x branch for some years. Now I'm thinking about moving to 2.x, which would mean GPG4Win. How do I migrate my keyrings to 2.x? Simple copy/paste? Best Regards -BEGIN PGP

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x? (trusted: w...@gnupg.org)

On Sat, 6 Jun 2009 10:27, mani...@gmail.com said: > Do we increase risk (risk of attacks, risk of errors etc ) by using front > ends ? That is hard to tell. Every extra line of code adds the risk of a new error; thus frontends are risky. However, most errors are due to user errors and thus a g

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x? (trusted: w...@gnupg.org)

.com said: > > Couple of questions. Is there a mailing list for gpgshell? If > > not, Does GPGShell support gnupg 2.x? > > I don't know and I am not interested to look thi up. GPGShell is > proprietary software! > > Note that there is another frontend called "G

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x?

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 23:50, allen.schu...@gmail.com said: > Couple of questions. Is there a mailing list for gpgshell? If > not, Does GPGShell support gnupg 2.x? I don't know and I am not interested to look thi up. GPGShell is proprietary software! Note that there is another fron

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Peter Pentchev wrote: > Errr, unless I'm badly mistaken, gpg-agent doesn't come with GnuPG 1.4.x > and to build and use it, you need some of those component libraries. > And, at least for me, gpg-agent is a very, very comfortable and > convenient to

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x?

On Thu, Jun 04, 2009 at 05:21:04PM -0500, John Clizbe wrote: > Allen Schultz wrote: > > Couple of questions. Is there a mailing list for gpgshell? > > Not that I know of. > > > If not, Does GPGShell support gnupg 2.x? > > Maybe? But why should it? > > Every

Re: gpgshell and gnupg 2.x?

Allen Schultz wrote: > Couple of questions. Is there a mailing list for gpgshell? Not that I know of. > If not, Does GPGShell support gnupg 2.x? Maybe? But why should it? Everything OpenPGP related is provided by GnuPG 1.4. GnuPG's added X.509 functions aren't needed by GPGshe

gpgshell and gnupg 2.x?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Couple of questions. Is there a mailing list for gpgshell? If not, Does GPGShell support gnupg 2.x? Allen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) - GPGshell v3.72 iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJKKEGQAAoJEMNyjCz1VlHgJc4IAILQZ1fYMXKtiV7W+y1

Re: upgrading from 1.x to 2.x

I've just reverted back to 1.x. Version 2.x does not seem to be worth the hassle. 1.x works like charm. But couldn't import the msg.asc here either ...so it really seems to be broken. Anyway. Not a particular good error message though. cheers -- Torsten On Apr 22, 2008, at 09:4

Re: upgrading from 1.x to 2.x

Hey Werner, Thanks for the response! refreshing the keys fails. $ gpg2 --refresh-keys an mpi of size 0 is not allowed gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: Invalid packet Incidently this problem was reported to me yesterday and figured out that the http key helper tool did not worked at all

Re: upgrading from 1.x to 2.x

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > refreshing the keys fails. > > $ gpg2 --refresh-keys > an mpi of size 0 is not allowed > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: Invalid packet Incidently this problem was reported to me yesterday and figured out that the http key helper tool di

upgrading from 1.x to 2.x

I have just "migrated" from 1.x to 2. (just installed 2.x instead of 1.x) and while I can still sign files with $ gpg2 --armor --output test.asc --detach-sig test refreshing the keys fails. $ gpg2 --refresh-keys an mpi of size 0 is not allowed gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read erro

Re: GPG 1.4.x v.s 2.x

Alan Olsen wrote: > The place I work needs to upgrade gpg badly. They know this. The > question is do they go with the 1.4.x tree or should they go to the > 2.x codebase? Depends on what you want to do with it. If you're only worried about OpenPGP (RFC2440 or RFC4880) traffic

Re: GPG 1.4.x v.s 2.x

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > We get files from clients all over the world. Are there features used in the > 2.x versions that 1.4.x cannot handle? Yes, S/MIME (i.e. CMS/X.509). However if you are using OpenPGP that does not effect you. The OpenPGP code of GnuP

GPG 1.4.x v.s 2.x

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 The place I work needs to upgrade gpg badly. They know this. The question is do they go with the 1.4.x tree or should they go to the 2.x codebase? Suggestions? Recommendations? We get files from clients all over the world. Are there features