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
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
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
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:
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
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
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,
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 {
> 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
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
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
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
algorithm
-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 just how
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
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?
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
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
Jens == Jens Lechtenboerger
clou...@informationelle-selbstbestimmung-im-internet.de 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
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-mime and not gnupg
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
correspondence for which I use pgp-mime
Jens == Jens Lechtenboerger
clou...@informationelle-selbstbestimmung-im-internet.de 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
K == K Raven m...@kairaven.de 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
http://wiki.kairaven.de/open/krypto/gpg/p/gpg4#linux (in
On 22/12/13 17:24, Uwe Brauer wrote:
K == K Raven m...@kairaven.de 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
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
I don’t
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,
.
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
since 2.x is not affected by the problem
.
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,
Werner
--
Die Gedanken
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 install
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
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 a
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:15 AM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org 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
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.
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
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 5:33 AM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org 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
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 installed in a solely
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 a way to
provide a passphrase to gpg-agent
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:19 PM, Werner Koch w...@gnupg.org 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've tried
-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 SIGNATURE
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 this point. The two
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
:
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 GnuPG Shell which is
sometimes confused with GPGShell. Only
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 frontend called GnuPG
-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
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 GPGshell.
There still
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?
Everything OpenPGP related is provided by GnuPG 1.4
-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 tool.
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 09:41, Torsten
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 did
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
-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
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, then the 1.4 tree
51 matches
Mail list logo
