Forgot the key passowrd
Folkert van Heusden
folkert at vanheusden.com
Tue Aug 9 19:41:18 CEST 2005
If it is not too long (too many characters), try 'nasty':
http://www.vanheusden.com/nasty/
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:10:20PM +0530, Thutika, Srinivas (ODC - Satyam) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After creation of the key I forgot the pasword for that key.
>
> Is there any way that I can get the password again.
>
> Regards,
> srini
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org [mailto:gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org]
> On Behalf Of gnupg-users-request at gnupg.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:55 PM
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Subject: Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15
>
>
> Send Gnupg-users mailing list submissions to
> gnupg-users at gnupg.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> gnupg-users-request at gnupg.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> gnupg-users-owner at gnupg.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Gnupg-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (David Srbecky)
> 2. Re: validate_key_list failed (Mark H. Wood)
> 3. Re: Proof of email ownership (Werner Koch)
> 4. Re: Multiple self signatures (David Shaw)
> 5. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Werner Koch)
> 6. Re: validate_key_list failed (Janusz A. Urbanowicz)
> 7. Re: Extra information in public key (Mark H. Wood)
> 8. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
> encoding alone, how?) (Greg Sabino Mullane)
> 9. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Zeljko Vrba)
> 10. removing revoked or expired signatures (Folkert van Heusden)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:59:15 +0200
> From: David Srbecky <dsrbecky at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <42F89A93.6090300 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> > Alphax schrieb:
> >
> >
> >>Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>>Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
> >>>>OutlookExpress? AAAARRRGGGG .....
> >>
> >>Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
> >
> >
> > The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
> > "Re: Extra information in public key" to this list.
> >
> > If the MIME declaration is change from
> >
> > multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> >
> > to
> >
> > multipart/mixed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> >
> > OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> > encryption plugins.
>
> Sorry for that. I do not know that happened. (Could it be some misuse of
> "Edit as New..."?)
>
> I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However,
> MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the
> signature in the mail headers.
>
> David Srbecky
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 254 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/a604ffac/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:22:33 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mark H. Wood" <mwood at IUPUI.Edu>
> Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed
> To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users at gnupg.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508090818080.21198 at mhw.ulib.iupui.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Me, too. :-/ I completely emptied my public keyring, one key at a time,
> looking for the damage and never found it. Eventually I renamed the empty
> file away and built a new one, and now I have no more trouble.
>
> I don't know whether a keyring file is supposed to shrink when substantial
> numbers of keys are removed, but it never did.
>
> - --
> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood at IUPUI.Edu
> Open-source executable: $0.00. Source: $0.00 Control: priceless!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
>
> iD8DBQFC+K4ds/NR4JuTKG8RAgFDAJ0dKzS38oA8+RL9lM9NVgu/0v67wQCffQfe
> 28f7fTe5Gv9eMOURoIdnrE0=
> =Q/GM
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:22:58 +0200
> From: Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org>
> Subject: Re: Proof of email ownership
> To: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
> Cc: gnupg-devel at gnupg.org, gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <87acjrtfbh.fsf at wheatstone.g10code.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:34:33 +0200, Marco d'Itri said:
>
> > How does this interact with DKIM?
>
> DKIM does not work. For example, their canonicalization is broken and
> one can easily fake a MIME message.
>
>
> Shalom-Salam,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:19:58 -0400
> From: David Shaw <dshaw at jabberwocky.com>
> Subject: Re: Multiple self signatures
> To: Tobias Eichert <tobias at karmabits.net>
> Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <20050809131958.GA9476 at jabberwocky.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:33:24PM +0200, Tobias Eichert wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have multiple self signatures within my key and I haven't
> > found a reason yet. I usually don't self-sign my key several
> > times (well, at least I'm not aware of it). :)
> >
> >
> http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0
> x7E9154BFDA817013
> >
> > How can I prevent this?
>
> You can't, really. Every time you change the expiration date of your
> key, or change your preferences you issue a new self-signature. The
> keyservers don't delete old ones (they can't), so self sigs pile up
> after a while. They are harmless.
>
> If it bothers you, do --edit-key and use the "clean" command.
>
> David
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:27:01 +0200
> From: Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org>
> Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
> To: Thomas Kuehne <thomas-gmane at kuehne.cn>
> Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <871x53tf4q.fsf at wheatstone.g10code.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:40 +0200, Thomas Kuehne said:
>
> > OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> > encryption plugins.
>
> Use a MIME compliant MUA and not such a spam/DoS/virus vector.
>
>
> Shalom-Salam,
>
> Werner
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:53:30 +0200
> From: "Janusz A. Urbanowicz" <alex at bofh.net.pl>
> Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org, Thomas Klausner <tk at giga.or.at>
> Message-ID: <20050809125329.GB6873 at syjon.fantastyka.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:33:07PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:15:47PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > >
> > > After adding some keys recently, I always get:
> > [snip]
> > > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring
> > > gpg: failed to rebuild keyring cache: invalid keyring
> > > gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model
> > > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> > > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> > > gpg: keydb_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring
> > > gpg: validate_key_list failed
> > >
> > > And the trustdb is not updated, because on the next run
> > > I get the same error.
> > >
> > > How can I fix this?
> > > Or how can I find out which key it is, so I can remove it
> > > (as workaround)?
> >
> > FWIW, I've been getting the same with the FreeBSD port of gnupg-1.4.2.
> > I've reverted to using 1.4.1 for the present.
>
> it is the same kind of errors that I repoted an hour ago on -devel with
> subject 'keyring thrashed' - if it helps.
>
> Alex
> --
> mors ab alto
> 0x46399138
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:37:39 -0500 (EST)
> From: "Mark H. Wood" <mwood at IUPUI.Edu>
> Subject: Re: Extra information in public key
> To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users at gnupg.org>
> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508090827470.21198 at mhw.ulib.iupui.edu>
> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Srbecky wrote:
> [snip]
> > And the content might look like this:
> >
> > First name=David
> > Last name=Srbecky
> > Country=Czech Republic
> > City=Usti nad Labem
> > Telephone=+65 536 1024
> > ICQ=#128-256-512
> > Homepage url=http://www.gnupg.org/
> > Prefers encrypted mail=true
> > Prefers signed mail=true
> > Preferred encapsulation=MIME
> > PGP key url=http://www.gnupg.org/dsrbecky/pgp.key
> [snip]
> > So, what do you think?
>
> I think this looks like a job for a directory service. About half of
> those attributes are already defined in some X.500 schema and could easily
> be dished up via LDAP, which any recent MUA ought to understand already.
> Using a directory service for directory service sounds better to me than
> overloading key subpackets. How about just one simple record (a URI?) to
> provide the linkage from the key to the directory object? (I'd be very
> much surprised if there isn't an attribute ID allocated for PGP keys
> already, which can effectively provide the reverse "link".)
>
> - --
> Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood at IUPUI.Edu
> Open-source executable: $0.00. Source: $0.00 Control: priceless!
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/
>
> iD8DBQFC+LGps/NR4JuTKG8RAvxYAJ9nu1hCD/xjiVUr1Y/uRFvQZZ2M/QCcD6KS
> 5bpCKFT7eKf+nOrhBV0kL5g=
> =yyg7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:26:28 -0000
> From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg at turnstep.com>
> Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
> encoding alone, how?)
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <54f73e336d613b22ab6a91b2f2f6f8fd at biglumber.com>
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> >> * My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
> >> systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.
>
> > Are there really a lot of such systems? I've encountered very few
> > that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments
> > then your message is still intact, just unsigned.
>
> I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
> attachments."
>
> > * It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a
> > webpage) while keeping the signature.
>
> > Keeping it, perhaps. Keeping it intact, not so much. Any
> > reformatting done by a web browser (which is perfectly legitimate for
> > the browser to do) will break the signature, of course. If you force
> > the formatting with <pre> tags, you've made a concession which allows
> > the MIME version to work equally well.
>
> Well, of course one uses a PRE tag, that was implied. And I don't see
> how the MIME version works equally well - how would you verify a
> webpage dump of a MIME stream?
>
> > I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the
> > benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a generally
> > applicable standard. The ability to sign attachments gracefully isn't
> > the only plus, for example, but that alone seems to be enough to make
> > MIME a clear winner.
>
> I'm not arguing giving up MIME at all - there are situations where it is
> indispensable, and I even use it on some occasions. But I did want to
> counter the "inline is evil and should never ever be used by anyone"
> argument. :)
>
> - --
> Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
> PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508091124
> https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkL4yukACgkQvJuQZxSWSshZfACgic4eyzK3o/5eUgaplSqJ7r2/
> 4KsAn1O91MNfSYdjHnnc5C3D5yV90+P7
> =X/XW
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:01:40 +0200
> From: Zeljko Vrba <zvrba at globalnet.hr>
> Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
> To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg at turnstep.com>
> Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <42F8D364.90109 at globalnet.hr>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> >
> > I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
> > attachments."
> >
> I can say that I've worked in such company. Oddly enough, the server
> seemed to strip only the application/pgp, or whatever the MIME type is,
> replacing it with some bogus MS-TNEF attachment. Other attachments got
> through just fine...
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 254 bytes
> Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
> Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/798e9c90/signature-0001.pgp
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:22:57 +0200
> From: Folkert van Heusden <folkert at vanheusden.com>
> Subject: removing revoked or expired signatures
> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Message-ID: <20050809162257.GL19223 at vanheusden.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
> Hi,
>
> How can I remove revoked and/or expired signatures from my public key?
> E.g. keys like these:
> sig X CA57AD7C 2005-07-15 PGP Global Directory Verification Key
>
>
> Folkert van Heusden
>
> --
> Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
>
> End of Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15
> *******************************************
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this e-mail. http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Folkert van Heusden
--
Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE
More information about the Gnupg-users
mailing list