From nicholas.cole at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 03:30:10 2008 From: nicholas.cole at gmail.com (Nicholas Cole) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:30:10 -0400 Subject: batch create DSA2 Message-ID: Dear List, A quick question about key generation using --batch --key-gen. Am I right using the option --openpgp, a DSA2 key can be created just by using Key-Type: DSA and a key-size longer than 1024. I.e. there is no specific Key-Type for DSA2 keys? Or is it the case that if DSA2 keys are enabled, even a 1024 length key will be DSA2 (and use new hashes etc)? Best wishes, N From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 1 04:17:23 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 22:17:23 -0400 Subject: batch create DSA2 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <88A29EF2-6475-454C-B100-A84E18CE98D2@jabberwocky.com> On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Nicholas Cole wrote: > Dear List, > > A quick question about key generation using --batch --key-gen. > > Am I right using the option --openpgp, a DSA2 key can be created > just by using > > Key-Type: DSA > > and a key-size longer than 1024. I.e. there is no specific Key-Type > for DSA2 keys? Sort of. There is no real distinction between DSA and DSA2. There is just DSA. However, the hashes that you can use with the key are dependent on the key length. It breaks down like this: length over 2048 === 256 bit hash length between 1025 and 2048 === 224 bit hash length between 0 and 1024 === 160 bit hash > Or is it the case that if DSA2 keys are enabled, even a 1024 length > key will be DSA2 (and use new hashes etc)? A 1024 bit DSA key can only use 160-bit hashes. You can use whatever hash you like (even the huge SHA512), but you're only going to get 160 bits worth of it. David From george.davidescu at gmail.com Fri Aug 1 21:50:34 2008 From: george.davidescu at gmail.com (bezna) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 12:50:34 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Keyblock packet tree structure? In-Reply-To: <87vdyq2dbm.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <18691259.post@talk.nabble.com> <87vdyq2dbm.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <18781518.post@talk.nabble.com> Werner Koch wrote: > > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:34, george.davidescu at gmail.com said: > > The keyblock is defined by OpenPGP (rfc4880). As of now gpg uses this > very format to store the packets along with some metadata. However this > is an internal implementaion detail of gpg. > > As per OpenPGP the very first packet is either a public or secret key > packet. > > Hi Werner, Thanks for the info. I'm looking now for some more detailed information, maybe something like this: PGP keypair pubic key component - public key ID UID 1 (primary) self-sig user A?s sig user B?s sig user C?s sig UID 2 self-sig user A?s sig sub-key - sub key ID self-sig secret key component - private key ID UID 1 self-sig UID 2 self-sig sub-key - sub key ID self-sig Is that the gist of it or is there anything else that I'm missing or glaringly wrong? What's the "root" packet where the tree starts, the one that links the public key and secret key packets, if they are even linked? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Keyblock-packet-tree-structure--tp18691259p18781518.html Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From kunalvshah+gnupg at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 05:12:59 2008 From: kunalvshah+gnupg at gmail.com (Kunal Shah) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:12:59 -0400 Subject: Multiple Email address for private key Message-ID: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> Hi All, My email program takes sender's email address and use appropriate private key to sign the message. same way it takes email address from "To" and use public key to encrypt the message. I want to know if it is possible to have multiple email addresses in single public/private key so that I have to use only one private key to sign outgoing messages and I have to distribute only one public key to get encrypted message for my 4 different email accounts. Thanks From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 2 05:36:23 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 23:36:23 -0400 Subject: Multiple Email address for private key In-Reply-To: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4893D637.9010006@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Kunal Shah wrote: > I want to know if it is possible to have multiple email addresses in > single public/private key so that I have to use only one private key > to sign outgoing messages and I have to distribute only one public key > to get encrypted message for my 4 different email accounts. Sure; just add additional UID's [User ID] to the Keypair with each UID representing a different Email address. :) JOHN ;) Timestamp: Friday 01 Aug 2008, 23:36 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4799: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIk9Y1AAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPxmAH/1Ite4y2q8txsVUWhp8cD9JR TuKSND4jNkGhiCAvWnvjmtlOfQxoyQDS6DP7ecw75JoHD5AmXBowDODmuCwYJT1f 1mkPaoQ/SW15Wbhqb+Qva8PZWE2WBpBZ1l2hn0+ForQNRTbzZHPyayxtcA/aOhCq qYlLcS1CJov6Ut1E74zFJSULZj2+W6LB3oMrHkrT6P5euo6YNk3vseq7rL+B8jva UI6OXZFZyxhLIDaVop9XvKnPaH9LSd3Wv6cKYR4KUJiVxDh7XXdJgSHRf/zFTewC v//dvtXsLk4+AOrPJ/pi21qkdBx7kg95y52bYywv87gCQinr6KFkoa+r3RU+s/Q= =Aq/2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From david at coffeefish.org Sat Aug 2 05:41:13 2008 From: david at coffeefish.org (David Koppenhofer) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:41:13 -0400 Subject: Multiple Email address for private key In-Reply-To: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> References: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Kunal Shah wrote: > > I want to know if it is possible to have multiple email addresses in > single public/private key so that I have to use only one private key > to sign outgoing messages and I have to distribute only one public key > to get encrypted message for my 4 different email accounts. Hi Kunal, Yes, you can have multiple email addresses associated with a keypair. They're called "uid's". The methods to add a new uid vary with the GUI you use, but on the command line, you can do: gpg --edit-key Then at the "Command>" prompt, type adduid. You'll then be prompted for the Real Name, email address, comment, as when you first generated your key. Don't forget to 'save' your changes. HTH, David From kunalvshah+gnupg at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 05:47:00 2008 From: kunalvshah+gnupg at gmail.com (Kunal Shah) Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 23:47:00 -0400 Subject: Multiple Email address for private key In-Reply-To: References: <9e0076140808012012ja57518fm622d3fccf68ff24d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9e0076140808012047m24be35adj2b10194cdf4f085e@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:41 PM, David Koppenhofer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Kunal Shah wrote: >> >> I want to know if it is possible to have multiple email addresses in >> single public/private key so that I have to use only one private key >> to sign outgoing messages and I have to distribute only one public key >> to get encrypted message for my 4 different email accounts. > > Hi Kunal, > > Yes, you can have multiple email addresses associated with a keypair. > They're called "uid's". The methods to add a new uid vary with the > GUI you use, but on the command line, you can do: > gpg --edit-key > > Then at the "Command>" prompt, type adduid. You'll then be prompted > for the Real Name, email address, comment, as when you first generated > your key. Don't forget to 'save' your changes. > > HTH, > David Thanks, could make it work. Actually I was using GPA and while doing edit key, it did not give me many options. Then I tried using WinPT and found the commands you mentioned. Also tried with command line. Issue solved. thanks for your help :-) -Kunal Shah > From dwawpod at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 13:46:08 2008 From: dwawpod at gmail.com (Dwayne) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 13:46:08 +0200 Subject: Starting with gnupg Message-ID: Hey there I've just begun using gnupg, but I have a concern: Lets say I've encrypted a file with my public-key, and uploaded it to somewhere on the net for backup purposes. What will happen, in case my backup-place gets compromised, and the file comes into the "wrong hands". Should I be worried that the person has the encrypted file or can I feel "safe" that the person doesn't have my privatekey+passphrase and therefore cannot decrypt it? best regards, dwayne -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeandavid8 at verizon.net Sat Aug 2 14:19:47 2008 From: jeandavid8 at verizon.net (Jean-David Beyer) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:19:47 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Dwayne wrote: > Hey there > > I've just begun using gnupg, but I have a concern: > > Lets say I've encrypted a file with my public-key, and uploaded it to > somewhere on the net for backup purposes. What will happen, in case my > backup-place gets compromised, and the file comes into the "wrong > hands". Should I be worried that the person has the encrypted file or > can I feel "safe" that the person doesn't have my privatekey+passphrase > and therefore cannot decrypt it? > He needs more than your public key. He needs your private key as well -- and the easiest way to get that is to get a copy of your secret keyring and your passphrase. But if he somehow got your private key, I do not believe he would need your passphrase. I hope you have _not_ sent your secret keyring anywhere. - -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:15:01 up 11:07, 4 users, load average: 4.40, 4.39, 4.39 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIlFDjPtu2XpovyZoRAmWvAJ49SgIHVIkPu/anfhAmP7UgeL6vCwCfWTPK PDvyIOVIPc8MFpDH8lsssLE= =hl8B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 2 14:24:26 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:24:26 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Dwayne wrote: > Hey there Hey back! :-D > Lets say I've encrypted a file with my public-key, and uploaded it to > somewhere on the net for backup purposes. What will happen, in case my > backup-place gets compromised, and the file comes into the "wrong > hands". Should I be worried that the person has the encrypted file or > can I feel "safe" that the person doesn't have my privatekey+passphrase > and therefore cannot decrypt it? No need to worry. This is precisely why You Encrypted the File prior to storing it on the Web. Rest assured You can feel "safe." BTW, What would cause You to think that an Encrypted File 'falling into the wrong hands' from a Web Storage Site would be any less secure than one suffering the same fate from any other source? :-\ JOHN ;) Timestamp: Saturday 02 Aug 2008, 08:21 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4799: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIlFH3AAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPj6kH/iciiAmqf0VAcYTlhi60V07S 94czmx4PZT+3i4cX2T2UoIcOjoI/8es+kTNcpoGVzv7UqoM9HfL/YC0kVgmIgt7a Omz5odMnFHqRdrmSBg1/xJjBHKN7pzhlqhL6QL1bt0H1DQf6MY50sGIcsaVz5kBK HBtwSMBlBBMpukasLYkWQw+Rf29R69RGNlbsaH54aH6eDLVQ4o2lbgD611CAcqSW p8X6IMIWXT8mtXZMdT1qtFdnUu1bMWEziF/NybueVsH5+D4jbANfBIjUfPFN7CSM ui85w6dlhuEJnJUfTvBA3/siBz+OI1ugTSicK/JuBkeBh32kHC+y+ho+qx8MMZc= =xDnj -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 2 14:34:07 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:34:07 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> References: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> Message-ID: <4894543F.7010601@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Jean-David Beyer wrote: > But if he somehow got your private key, I do not believe he > would need your passphrase. YES! S/He _would_ need the passphrase even if in possession of the Private/Secret Key. The passphrase is the "key" that unlocks the Secret Key which is why there is so much emphasis placed on making sure Your passphrase is a strong one that cannot easily be guessed or 'Social Engineered'. Should an adversary come into possession of the Secret Key they would then need to brute force attack the passphrase. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Saturday 02 Aug 2008, 08:33 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4799: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIlFQ9AAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPI6wH/3sA85ldBEzOfhigiFaQT6Lb hDTEhUKA72byjUAdBPtTRAqZ9zUCmppT0WX+/cPWBODHVLgJF2FfWc4Z+SWjTaXn qjwsgU4zwiDwaNa6XiPV8kqypENuxLc7y7q3xsTdc/pr1ZT4z6kuhWcXJ3Gr6xmh psAao5Af0DD44MRVcQPD6b8dyHhuLmGCwlJIhd+feLwrkI0AHqytCbjQHPwaRd3U CAL2NtlWesBYsSBFw0KM1WbA50UebCTQM3GPDzNDi9w6QP0mCg2dg+CCmqhmqXnO zRRgJNabH7R6OQ6Ok4BjRKpS8Czx/SrcUMNDi7sOOLKSpQtls8tPGMrK5n/7qXs= =zml0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Sat Aug 2 16:30:06 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:30:06 -0600 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48946F6E.4050907@sixdemonbag.org> Dwayne wrote: > What will happen, in case my backup-place gets compromised, and the > file comes into the "wrong hands". They get a bunch of data they cannot distinguish from white noise. :) > Should I be worried that the person has the encrypted file or can I > feel "safe" that the person doesn't have my privatekey+passphrase and > therefore cannot decrypt it? Someone would need: (1) the private key used to create the message, (2) the passphrase for said private key As long as these two are kept secret, an attacker would have a (very!) hard time decrypting the message. From jeandavid8 at verizon.net Sat Aug 2 15:48:05 2008 From: jeandavid8 at verizon.net (Jean-David Beyer) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:48:05 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <4894543F.7010601@bellsouth.net> References: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> <4894543F.7010601@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48946595.6000701@verizon.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John W. Moore III wrote: > Jean-David Beyer wrote: > > >> But if he somehow got your private key, I do not believe he >> would need your passphrase. > > YES! S/He _would_ need the passphrase even if in possession of the > Private/Secret Key. The passphrase is the "key" that unlocks the Secret > Key which is why there is so much emphasis placed on making sure Your > passphrase is a strong one that cannot easily be guessed or 'Social > Engineered'. > > Should an adversary come into possession of the Secret Key they would > then need to brute force attack the passphrase. > You would certainly need the passphrase to get at the contents of secring.gpg. But if I got the secret key from there, would I still need the passphrase? I.e., does the passphrase control access to the _keyring_ or the _key itself_? I suppose I should look it up in the RFC 4880. - -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 08:45:01 up 11:37, 4 users, load average: 5.03, 4.38, 4.30 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIlGWVPtu2XpovyZoRAt53AJ905TQ2aYuKONX4hZJP+X+4hVOC+QCfREzT qm9WdAefCFLv4USLvS9gFRs= =sumU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Sat Aug 2 16:58:02 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 08:58:02 -0600 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <48946595.6000701@verizon.net> References: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> <4894543F.7010601@bellsouth.net> <48946595.6000701@verizon.net> Message-ID: <489475FA.60305@sixdemonbag.org> Jean-David Beyer wrote: > I.e., does the passphrase control access to the _keyring_ or the > _key itself_? The latter. From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 17:02:30 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:02:30 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> References: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48947706.9010108@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Jean-David Beyer escribi?: > Dwayne wrote: >> hands". Should I be worried that the person has the encrypted file or >> can I feel "safe" that the person doesn't have my privatekey+passphrase >> and therefore cannot decrypt it? > > He needs more than your public key. He needs your private key as well -- and > the easiest way to get that is to get a copy of your secret keyring and your > passphrase. But if he somehow got your private key, I do not believe he > would need your passphrase. I hope you have _not_ sent your secret keyring > anywhere. Well, the idea about having a passphrase is to protect the private key if it falls in the wrong hands... with a strong passphrase, there is no way to activate the private key... of course, if somebody gets the private key, maybe he can get the passphrase too... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIlHcGAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAXf4IAJpvPidB47DYAxCDeZH2B0ni XSsxtTNcr7jLYdZ2FYgtxECVGpTX8iDYp0H8VCH/LDydjSl7MeJIqePlSiIVY+zE /xaYXWIiYAj7wcPHk4dpO/d+RCYDYzAK+kfGgdO12vSTHn8LWhEacFmRXhJs2pT5 SIuXkJqjBtDX9nrrVnfP577dv9paV92Ao9N7UrJXgs/mojudU6+J5U6hg3sVpFsY MRYTWoI6qykSgWq3YDeV9J02A83UfElDkNN+QFoypLHt1zahsfmTes211XbvHXnY u1jzCa5ug9bjUCw83gYr4QaD06Kvz8QAWlLXka0dqN+oZonEUR8wLClTBl0kt1U= =ObVP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 17:04:34 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:04:34 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 John W. Moore III escribi?: > BTW, What would cause You to think that an Encrypted File 'falling into > the wrong hands' from a Web Storage Site would be any less secure than > one suffering the same fate from any other source? :-\ If he is using ftp to upload the files... standard ftp sends username and password unencrypted... so it could be sniffed... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIlHeCAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA5E8H/0sOSnBdyJBPq2DKwSQ+4LF2 fUrY9MpdIhhvtiwLQD6sAO7Wh9Z0mB0cYx/MMt15KMGU/OAD1yzyJvlo/A+aW7rA LIQSZKP2xdwC6a59Q9XdtUfGFhoQxfIwyPqvghgF30lrYfd6h0ermfTi5Ju+wF2p BFQeMIbeeY46UNUcoVreHymWmBpRoNLyOAYmCtAM6F9rE+SL+q4XGHai4qkWqzr4 H3NP72PFndTFOS68OIG550Q6Qd8G7V5Jl/E7n+BOss7PicWrJrRb8M152M1AYFzo w3dB6Bc0qc5qp0+GtckJGoE565kgnei7Owiifpcv5FCO+1gauZpAMYSusJMh5Us= =1kRS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 17:06:43 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 11:06:43 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <48946595.6000701@verizon.net> References: <489450E3.6030905@verizon.net> <4894543F.7010601@bellsouth.net> <48946595.6000701@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48947803.80405@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Jean-David Beyer escribi?: > You would certainly need the passphrase to get at the contents of > secring.gpg. But if I got the secret key from there, would I still need the > passphrase? I.e., does the passphrase control access to the _keyring_ or the > _key itself_? I suppose I should look it up in the RFC 4880. The passphrase controls the access to the key itself, I have several private keys, and each one has its own passphrase... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIlHgDAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAzz8IAJKtMaChfjBYvZdg3+WYuAEr ye8yyFK2GIIkSkB6PVa+3YQt2eDKb15sigKILFD6IKWWELwWxgMcQncbCtYxhCWS 3zkFr6zY3wtUocJ+JyFSa48QfokkQw5702ZjVfN9BIwYQXHJ8CyHe7TnRixKYDoD zPdrTxL0mssOet1W/KJIzzvxXrz80OpHVPNdINYtPVouFR1xGIXyxhg2CzMyfuN8 ye8KGiv7YKhm78xsW+TDgdTp2CqoC+9HVZPaDc4IY4Hp8WLsuvMqW6XVTQ9VYTnw Kf4RK7lOcZbruoYM2Fbl1cYylmqmRvZgcKUzAmjfpOWCapTiFyNwswZd1by10pw= =sT9E -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Sat Aug 2 17:42:11 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 09:42:11 -0600 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > If he is using ftp to upload the files... standard ftp sends username > and password unencrypted... so it could be sniffed... The canonical answer is "don't do that, then!" telnet and ftp are antique protocols that have much better replacements available to them. ssh, scp and sftp are all in common usage nowadays. Anyone who uses telnet or ftp for any kind of sensitive information is living dangerously by deliberate choice. From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 2 19:28:15 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 13:28:15 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4894992F.5020503@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Faramir wrote: > If he is using ftp to upload the files... standard ftp sends username > and password unencrypted... so it could be sniffed... So? The UID and PW to access the FTP Server is not [or shouldn't be] the same as that used for the Secret Key. :-\ Traffic Analysis will show that Someone Uploaded and Encrypted File to a Server; this in no way, shape nor form compromises the Encrypted File. All 'sniffing' the UID and FTP Server PW grants the 3rd party is the ability to Upload Files using another's Log-In info and possibly Delete the Encrypted File before the recipient can access it. You're talking about Apples & Corn here. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Saturday 02 Aug 2008, 13:27 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4799: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEbBAEBCgAGBQJIlJktAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsP1h0H+LthAvI25n6Djb6nubS9vLdI 9r6ek3K26uvXocOHV2Zs0B71bPhImSRY6PnxY3fnm8ZmY/h8reQxAV5OXvN8MHa5 Hab4yEuXdNDyfUxwLfWqYYtp6YIi4XTqTWfe+fZzMF546BF3su/AQhDaPN+7+e4I Es+MAmLQsE6ze+6TG3+AoQ++3OdDZjvaa8A1DWqD/wrqHvndVbydNu7n2JubwZuq 4gcvm2G0J5QDTgW2Sz7uGKTunRfCovhX8o/ik2Is7th3tgiOwXJm2Fs9VbhR/r4j IXLQUbzLlzldrpvb5Lbs41pzC3j1G/a/kxPf8CO91TfNuerWZMjGrnWO4qy9gQ== =7wYg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Sat Aug 2 19:36:10 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:36:10 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> Message-ID: > Ian> I have a local file that I want to encrypt and upload to a remote > Ian> machine in encrypted form. Encrypting is farily quick, but > Ian> uploading is slow, so I use rsync for the other (unencrypted) > Ian> files. But the fact that the encrypted file is different each time > Ian> defeats the rsync incremental upload. > > Gabor> Jari Ruusu's loop-aes uses the following method: - it encrypts > Gabor> disk/file with AES - it has 1-65 pieces of 128-256 bit keys for > Gabor> this symmetric cipher - disk keys are stored in a file that is > Gabor> encrypted by GPG - Several users may have access to this file > Gabor> (each with his own secret key) > > Ok, but how does that solve my problem? Even if I encrypt my file with > a symmetric cipher I face the same issue - each encrypted copy will be > different. The password is not random therefore every time you encrypt the same plaintext you got the same cryptfile. (The opposite would cause big problems in a disk encryption system. :-) Then this password is encrypted and stored transparently in a .gpg file. Why don't you try it? Gabor From eocsor at gmail.com Sat Aug 2 21:13:42 2008 From: eocsor at gmail.com (Roscoe) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 04:43:42 +0930 Subject: identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> Message-ID: On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 12:08 PM, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I have a local file that I want to encrypt and upload to a remote > machine in encrypted form. Encrypting is farily quick, but uploading is > slow, so I use rsync for the other (unencrypted) files. But the fact > that the encrypted file is different each time defeats the rsync > incremental upload. > > A partial workaround is only encrypting when the plaintext file is newer > than the encrypted one, but it's not bulletproof because sometimes the > plaintext _does_ get saved even if it's identical. > > Not a huge deal, in all, but someone must have faced this situation before. So is the local file is available in an unencrypted form on your host? If so one could utilise some scheme involving rdiff. There's also http://duplicity.nongnu.org/ which I think does something similar, but in an easier to use way. 0 ~$ cd test 0 ~/test$ echo hello > mysecretfile 0 ~/test$ mkdir remotesite 0 ~/test$ gpg -o remotesite/mysecretfile.gpg -c mysecretfile 0 ~/test$ rdiff signature mysecretfile mysecretfile-uploaded-signature 0 ~/test$ echo i think this will work >> mysecretfile 0 ~/test$ rdiff delta mysecretfile-uploaded-signature mysecretfile mysecretfile. update1 0 ~/test$ gpg -o remotesite/mysecretfile.update1.gpg -c mysecretfile.update1 0 ~/test$ rdiff signature mysecretfile mysecretfile-uploaded-signature 0 ~/test$ echo i hope this will work >> mysecretfile 0 ~/test$ rdiff delta mysecretfile-uploaded-signature mysecretfile mysecretfile. update2 0 ~/test$ cd remotesite 0 ~/test/remotesite$ gpg -o mysecretfile -d mysecretfile.gpg gpg: AES256 encrypted data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase 0 ~/test/remotesite$ gpg -o mysecretfile.update1 -d mysecretfile.update1.gpg gpg: AES256 encrypted data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase 0 ~/test/remotesite$ gpg -o mysecretfile.update2 -d mysecretfile.update2.gpg gpg: AES256 encrypted data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase 0 ~/test/remotesite$ ls mysecretfile mysecretfile.gpg mysecretfile.update1 mysecretfile.update1.gpg mysecretfile.update2 mysecretfile.update2.gpg 0 ~/test/remotesite$ cat mysecretfile hello 0 ~/test/remotesite$ rdiff patch mysecretfile mysecretfile.update1 mysecretfile.1 0 ~/test/remotesite$ rdiff patch mysecretfile.1 mysecretfile.update2 mysecretfile.2 0 ~/test/remotesite$ cat mysecretfile.2 hello i think this will work i hope this will work 0 ~/test/remotesite$ From wk at gnupg.org Sun Aug 3 13:55:46 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:55:46 +0200 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: (Kiss Gabor's message of "Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:36:10 +0200 (CEST)") References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> Message-ID: <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Sat, 2 Aug 2008 19:36, kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu said: > The password is not random therefore every time you > encrypt the same plaintext you got the same cryptfile. No, you won't. All sound encryption schemes use a bit of random to make the resulting ciphertext different. In the easiest case this is called a salt and used to stop dictionary attacks. For example, such a salt has been used for 25 years or so on all Unix systems to protect the login password. > (The opposite would cause big problems in a disk encryption system. :-) No. Different ciphertexts may yield the same plaintext. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Sun Aug 3 20:07:27 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:07:27 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: > > The password is not random therefore every time you > > encrypt the same plaintext you got the same cryptfile. > > No, you won't. All sound encryption schemes use a bit of random to make > the resulting ciphertext different. In the easiest case this is called > a salt and used to stop dictionary attacks. For example, such a salt > has been used for 25 years or so on all Unix systems to protect the > login password. > > > (The opposite would cause big problems in a disk encryption system. :-) > > No. Different ciphertexts may yield the same plaintext. A test speaks for itself: $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum Password: 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum Password: 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ Cheers Gabor From jeandavid8 at verizon.net Sun Aug 3 20:36:24 2008 From: jeandavid8 at verizon.net (Jean-David Beyer) Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:36:24 -0400 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <4895FAA8.2040103@verizon.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: >>> The password is not random therefore every time you encrypt the same >>> plaintext you got the same cryptfile. >> No, you won't. All sound encryption schemes use a bit of random to >> make the resulting ciphertext different. In the easiest case this is >> called a salt and used to stop dictionary attacks. For example, such a >> salt has been used for 25 years or so on all Unix systems to protect >> the login password. >> >>> (The opposite would cause big problems in a disk encryption system. >>> :-) >> No. Different ciphertexts may yield the same plaintext. > > A test speaks for itself: > > $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum Password: > 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum > Password: 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ > ????? Apples and Oranges. Consider: $ gpg --output test1.gpg --encrypt --recipient jeandavid8 [at] verizon [dot] net /etc/passwd $ gpg --output test2.gpg --encrypt --recipient jeandavid8 [at] verizon [dot] net /etc/passwd $ od -c test1.gpg | less 0000000 205 004 016 003 y 037 301 373 022 N 006 c 020 017 376 $ 0000020 353 } _ W \r - 314 030 B 303 z 226 223 340 S 313 0000040 375 0 4 $ ) 254 a \0 377 364 / < ; 222 ( 315 0000060 / 006 213 004 221 264 < a 255 247 B 275 \a 301 264 Q 0000100 203 250 . 257 \0 Q 376 232 312 266 3 . 321 022 b 215 0000120 374 $ 241 ` 256 j D 351 a 246 326 ? 223 313 210 $ 0000140 321 023 032 244 262 273 246 215 - i b > m " 255 313 0000160 035 240 337 230 \v B 327 \r 265 362 255 271 ( ? b 202 0000200 034 332 371 T 250 310 = 223 211 236 304 U 334 206 z ` $ od -c test2.gpg | less 0000000 205 004 016 003 y 037 301 373 022 N 006 c 020 017 376 8 0000020 A 217 B R 377 264 b y 361 X 243 \ 316 x 346 246 0000040 A 016 257 310 Y 032 265 & 022 g 016 327 274 276 364 337 0000060 ) b 211 354 \f 005 354 002 001 224 251 1 ) S \a 266 0000100 + 312 004 " 310 315 354 } A 206 p . 242 332 214 305 0000120 226 T 255 304 d 235 # B 240 \f 020 [ 003 x 023 305 0000140 210 l H 247 1 334 ( 216 6 257 H 314 A 023 323 363 0000160 = 361 9 V U ' c 7 s 247 372 9 306 202 342 203 0000200 l K Y 323 Y z 372 ~ \r \v 270 o J } 272 1 - -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 14:25:01 up 1 day, 17:17, 5 users, load average: 4.04, 4.14, 4.22 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIlfqnPtu2XpovyZoRAo8CAJ9az5lSAAHKT3r1SFAcTow6vu0ACACfeSrU /t2BOHB7rHXejd+5DXK/mCM= =E/Rm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Sun Aug 3 20:57:34 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:57:34 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <4895FAA8.2040103@verizon.net> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <4895FAA8.2040103@verizon.net> Message-ID: > > $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum Password: > > 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ cat /etc/passwd | aespipe | md5sum > > Password: 9220c2e1d5a5a83710d020b04c306c24 - $ > > > ????? > > Apples and Oranges. Consider: Don't consider please. :-) Original question was what are proper tools to encrypt files before remote backup over low bandwith connection. I suggested a good one a few days ago. No one disclaimed yet. Of course I also could mention dozens of less perfect solutions. E.g. "Copy all files to /dev/null that can be well compressed before transmission" :-) Regards Gabor From burn.till.skid at gmail.com Sun Aug 3 21:16:52 2008 From: burn.till.skid at gmail.com (Oscar Pereira) Date: Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:16:52 +0100 Subject: [gnupg-users] Message-ID: Hi all, I might be doing something wrong here, but I can't seem to change the default signing key. I've edited ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf, and set default-key to . I've even setted it to 0x and but none of those works either. When I try to sign a file (using --debug=64), it tells me that what configuration file it is reading, and that's the **correct** one: ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf ! But despite this, if I give no explicit key when signing, it keeps using an old, revoked key. The signing process thus fails, outputting this: gpg: no default secret key: unusable secret key gpg: signing failed: unusable secret key If I do give it an explicit keyID in the command line, to the correct key, then it works properly. Ideas? Has anyone been having the same problem? (I've search the bug tracker, but failed to find anything like this...) Regards, From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 06:19:28 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:19:28 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <4894992F.5020503@bellsouth.net> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <4894992F.5020503@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48968350.2000408@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 John W. Moore III escribi?: > Faramir wrote: > >> If he is using ftp to upload the files... standard ftp sends username >> and password unencrypted... so it could be sniffed... > > So? The UID and PW to access the FTP Server is not [or shouldn't be] > the same as that used for the Secret Key. :-\ Traffic Analysis will > show that Someone Uploaded and Encrypted File to a Server; this in no > way, shape nor form compromises the Encrypted File. > You're talking about Apples & Corn here. I thought the question was about why an ftp site is "unsafe" to store files... if somebody gets the user and password, that somebody can download the file... but I was not talking about what can somebody do with an encrypted stolen file... so my intention was to talk just about apples, or about corn, but not both at the same time ;) Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIloNQAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAAhUH/RTAu3BrijzEQy2/mksc16NZ kh5MVUosezt88Y+Ivilf8ceJ5s9XxgzUkvh9ZEYV1B8CkrvJm0BE0gQKKL9QoBoi wT+cUu9OTpX5QNKcfUyzn+UWVCqyeR+nR6ej91C3OS/MOiiHjZNQ3RmSWJla0wD9 TRgog0TcfbnQr09HgJ3qVj8nyxWsGqvnMPb87OPwTyv+bgSI1apBs1EvMRfXcH2y nD7LjFFN5kWLvGeujbidOGC54vUP7XhHSpwqPgLyQZi1xNXpi0OklDedGOT1PhrD oKhwfh7U6ih/RDFYp45ketb0Z1pd7SwTODlBBq5TH9ijKqXHD3j+InzWQKE0Xf4= =tWnx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 09:25:34 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 03:25:34 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Robert J. Hansen escribi?: > Faramir wrote: >> If he is using ftp to upload the files... standard ftp sends username >> and password unencrypted... so it could be sniffed... ... > telnet and ftp are antique protocols that have much better replacements > available to them. ssh, scp and sftp are all in common usage nowadays. > Anyone who uses telnet or ftp for any kind of sensitive information is > living dangerously by deliberate choice. Some servers are hard to configure to use sftp (if possible at all)... as an example, a friend of me asked me to enable SSL in his server (I am not sure if it is a virtual server or just a virtualhost, but I am sure it has shared IP). When I tried to install the certificate... I realized it couldn't be done without having to pay an extra monthly fee to get our own IP. Without it, we are stuck to the "common" certificate extended to all the hosts in that IP, and I am not sure if it is trustworth at all... so sometimes, it's not by choice... or because they don't know how to configure these services. About what is "sensitive information", some people have fun by stealing somebody's email and closing it... but of course if we talk about a file containing the credit card number of your customers, then that is info is worth hiring somebody to set up security before something bad happens... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIlq7uAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA8kgH/RETG81rnkAkAStQI9xyxd5x EmKpNDvoVxyxNh1weOhbZ/ehjNsWvfFXTgq5qj/MnuAmZffvGdKB11Dn6VETHMve UA65N+gB1/wAL0NSKuKDyYDMm3h1B/EIcO28sLe+M4sjakKTQq7RMvvoDIHEuJyx GXVHMJ4DKQVEnoMEAxq75qSI9LD0H5NSybPdhWCAQrnMUhRwp74h7RKjVp19n/Er jVzT/7fFplb6btCACmrIZIGenBxjCK4qka/nGNDxVMuVuJR5DzI/qBg44VZk92Wz /jMvzu1bWph8GdFkjWcTOXEXJEq/Ypwhg3Y56qxFnzTPVnDiANBBOQeHAwv+K4U= =qIVx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 4 09:44:31 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:44:31 +0200 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: (Kiss Gabor's message of "Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:07:27 +0200 (CEST)") References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87vdyhz0kg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:07, kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu said: >> No. Different ciphertexts may yield the same plaintext. > > A test speaks for itself: May I quote from the readme of loop-aes: Recommended key setup mode is multi-key-v3, which is based on gpg encrypted key files. In this mode, the passphrase is protected against optimized dictionary attacks via salting and key iteration of gpg. Passphrase length should be 20 characters or more. Obviously you are not using this mode and thus you get the same ciphertext. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 4 09:50:38 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:50:38 +0200 Subject: [gnupg-users] In-Reply-To: (Oscar Pereira's message of "Sun, 3 Aug 2008 20:16:52 +0100") References: Message-ID: <87r695z0a9.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Sun, 3 Aug 2008 21:16, burn.till.skid at gmail.com said: > ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf ! But despite this, if I give no explicit key when > signing, it keeps using an old, revoked key. The signing process thus > fails, outputting this: > > gpg: no default secret key: unusable secret key > gpg: signing failed: unusable secret key We need to look at the output. Please run the sign operation with options "-v --debug 54" and show us the output. If you don't want that to end up on a mailing list, send it to me. Also add a listing of the relevant public keys. And well, what version of gpg are you using? Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From marini.maurizio at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 09:31:32 2008 From: marini.maurizio at gmail.com (Maurizio Marini Gmail) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:31:32 +0200 Subject: [gnupg-users] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <784f9de10808040031ta4ff9c3r9e54a4045cd3093e@mail.gmail.com> On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 9:16 PM, Oscar Pereira wrote: > I might be doing something wrong here, but I can't seem to change the > Regards, > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > i use option instead of gpg.conf my fault was: i had 2 default :( grep default options # file ~/.gnupg/options by default. default-key 72094E5C # Using this option you can encrypt to a default key. key validation # The second form uses the default key as default recipient. #default-recipient some-user-id #default-recipient-self # compiled in (which is the default for GNU and xxxBSD systems) # If you do not want to use the default port 11371, you can give the default-key 2BDF0AC1 grep default option what u get? -- Maurizio Marini GSM +39-335-8259739 Fano: +39-0721-855285 Milano +39-02303123406 S. Costanzo: +39-0721950396 IAXTel: (700) 350-1234 Crashing is the only thing windows does quickly. From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Mon Aug 4 10:18:09 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:18:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <87vdyhz0kg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87vdyhz0kg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > May I quote from the readme of loop-aes: > > Recommended key setup mode is multi-key-v3, which is based on gpg > encrypted key files. In this mode, the passphrase is protected against > optimized dictionary attacks via salting and key iteration of > gpg. Passphrase length should be 20 characters or more. > > Obviously you are not using this mode and thus you get the same > ciphertext. Eeerrr... sorry to say but I think you missed something. Loop-aes works like this: 1. disk content is encrypted/decrypted on the fly with symmetric cipher algorithm AES. 2. Disk keys are stored in a gpg encrypted file. Multiple users may be access to the disk keys, each with own passphrase. That is based on the well known method: "encrypt content with a random session key and symmetric cipher then encrypt session key multiple times for each addressee". (Actually this does not increase the security because any of authorized users can extract plain disk keys from the gpg file so ability to use personal passphrases is just a convenient feature.) 3. Disk keys do not change(!). I can restore a lost key file from an USB stick a year after generating the encrypted block device then I can mount it again. 4. Key file and various keys are handled automatically by losetup and mount commands. 5. Command 'aespipe' do the same thing as 'loop' kernel module and losetup/mount do. (Compatibility level is 100%.) Its primary use to encrypt an existing filesystem _in_place_. (No need to copy the content from one block device to other. If you are not afraid of power outage. ;-) Ian! I suggest to make your own _test_ then tell us what is the result. :) Moreover in case of any doubt you can contact Jari Ruusu. Subscribe linux-crypto mailing list. Regards Gabor -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFIlrtEd2oiOrtquzgRAnFlAKCRlJPYbSG8NeQeM+En+h3EZZwpGwCgpDXK x9Hlt5aIOy40mhp0wJnH3zY= =2OeU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Aug 4 10:49:46 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:49:46 -0600 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87vdyhz0kg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <4896C2AA.7030407@sixdemonbag.org> Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: > Eeerrr... sorry to say but I think you missed something. So did you. This scheme is poorly specified, based on an incorrect understanding of user needs, as a practical matter can be cracked, is rife with implementation difficulties, and you seem to have no understanding of the implicit tradeoffs and compromises which go into it. It's just not going to work. Please study the problem domain. Additional remarks: * Key management issues in this are largely handwaved. * Rekeying of drive is problematic. * BitLocker's architecture may be worth studying * Disk keys _do_ change, they _need_ to be changeable, and any protocol which does not support this is not suitable for real world use. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Aug 4 10:54:39 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:54:39 -0600 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4896C3CF.9000406@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > Some servers are hard to configure to use sftp (if possible at all)... This means you need to find a competent sysadmin and/or hosting provider. If your sysadmin says it's hard to configure the server to use ssh/scp/sftp, fire your sysadmin and get a competent one. If your hosting provider refuses to provide ssh/scp/sftp, take your business elsewhere. > as an example, a friend of me asked me to enable SSL in his server (I am > not sure if it is a virtual server or just a virtualhost, but I am sure > it has shared IP). When I tried to install the certificate... I realized > it couldn't be done without having to pay an extra monthly fee to get > our own IP. This is irrelevant to ssh/scp/sftp. From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Mon Aug 4 11:12:35 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 11:12:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <4896C2AA.7030407@sixdemonbag.org> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> <877iayxqgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87vdyhz0kg.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <4896C2AA.7030407@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: > So did you. This scheme is poorly specified, based on an incorrect > understanding of user needs, as a practical matter can be cracked, is > rife with implementation difficulties, and you seem to have no > understanding of the implicit tradeoffs and compromises which go into it. I'm sure you are right. Ian! Sorry. There is no way to solve your problem. Don't even have a try. :-> Gabor From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 11:54:04 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:54:04 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <4896C3CF.9000406@sixdemonbag.org> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> <4896C3CF.9000406@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <4896D1BC.5090007@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Robert J. Hansen escribi?: > Faramir wrote: >> Some servers are hard to configure to use sftp (if possible at all)... > > This means you need to find a competent sysadmin and/or hosting > provider. If your sysadmin says it's hard to configure the server to Of course, but sometimes, "you" are the sysadmin (it's like when windows say to me "ask to your sysadmin" (and it is my home computer...). We don't know if the ftp is for a company, or for personal purposes... Usually I think as if we are talking about a person needing to do something, and not about a company needing to hire somebody to do something (in that case, it should be just matter to hire the right person). >> as an example, a friend of me asked me to enable SSL in his server (I am >> not sure if it is a virtual server or just a virtualhost, but I am sure >> it has shared IP). When I tried to install the certificate... I realized >> it couldn't be done without having to pay an extra monthly fee to get >> our own IP. > > This is irrelevant to ssh/scp/sftp. Wait... it seems I have been very wrong about the subject... does it means I don't need to install certificates to enable sftp? I know this is turning off-topic, so, can you please give some source of info to learn how to make sftp work? I already searched in wikipedia, and found sftp can stand for "ftp over ssh" or "SSH file transfer protocol", and that those are 2 different concepts... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIltG8AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAeswH/iNafu5DqJ969Noq1hyjxm9S Gz/YwXOZGGh9qF3tc2FbKcTIjcI97GVb+43zXxtanvTce5qxZjekkypcZg+hITWZ /WhLZ54glC0ScUhpzSCJ0tFOBZ/1SRqvW02O/X0NTa4ee4KXKwV/iLP/wsFvWW1X JMW4UUfh/zJdbEnY/UYz8KcYpK4ZgO6DhZ8cBxezofSvOkNEmyClqyW1wkp/eDCh qjHQlne3EB1vri1Y8RyKgolwP+aJtHqcbp9p2yhyMnYmL5SWCndOijkyN2cJ1FGM OIVfqfk8lp81+Q28kGD/57RrbfEhRs7hswsoqKr/G3X/GKEotlFqX1Ww9gUyxlo= =xBOe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jelledejong at powercraft.nl Mon Aug 4 12:30:20 2008 From: jelledejong at powercraft.nl (Jelle de Jong) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:30:20 +0200 Subject: how to encrypt file for specific recipients Message-ID: <4896DA3C.2080609@powercraft.nl> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everybody, I need to encrypt two file so that it they become only decrypt-able accessible for by two persons/keys. But i can't find the information how to do this, can somebody help me creating the correct commands? The files: sshfs-debug-v2.txt.tar.gz sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz The recipients gpg --list-public-keys 1024D/78830E32 1024D/44CAAE70 gpg --encrypt --???? sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz ?? Best regards, Jelle -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iJwEAQECAAYFAkiW2joACgkQ1WclBW9j5HmblAP/TXDamtlRf2ghATEQHCMkpYv6 KxOZidON9SE5rFTRagGzpodBygzZMkP7o4yC2U9dEd0q1ONqE1094h18INEU7NHC 8BtZVsqS1a1It5J1DHpkpBXYEePwVrq9vFOIkYwesQtMY018b0ZPG7PFaEBEhunq jbHliylAq7PMFXo4E9A= =Kgv1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jelledejong at powercraft.nl Mon Aug 4 12:35:25 2008 From: jelledejong at powercraft.nl (Jelle de Jong) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:35:25 +0200 Subject: how to encrypt file for specific recipients (grammar-fix) Message-ID: <4896DB6D.9030605@powercraft.nl> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello everybody, I need to encrypt two documents, so that they become decryptable for two specific persons with the correct keys. However I can't find the information how to do this, can somebody help me with the creation of the correct commands? The files: sshfs-debug-v2.txt.tar.gz sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz The recipients gpg --list-public-keys 1024D/78830E32 1024D/44CAAE70 gpg --encrypt --???? sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz ?? Best regards, Jelle -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iJwEAQECAAYFAkiW22sACgkQ1WclBW9j5Hm1eAP9GAKPuREBHd/rvjlGacksjGs3 e2sVvGq35GlLB4Xy/Bp8skq2SInz6/X4FGskRsRXtKNc00v7jrSAK+25ugh+UirP g7kYCJRp0lGecLhZVIYXG/F9LmLeuuB87zv8EO4TO5wk9v2CSdBLCi+NJ/8WEXQO A+3fYVqEjDhBoXJq8FY= =5cNs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Mon Aug 4 12:47:09 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:47:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] how to encrypt file for specific recipients In-Reply-To: <4896DA3C.2080609@powercraft.nl> References: <4896DA3C.2080609@powercraft.nl> Message-ID: > gpg --list-public-keys > 1024D/78830E32 > 1024D/44CAAE70 > > gpg --encrypt --???? sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz ?? "--recipient" is what you need. It can be used multiple times. It accepts key ID as well as email address. gpg --encrypt --recipient 0x78830E32 \ --recipient miklos at somewhere.hu sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz Regards Gabor From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 4 12:50:26 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:50:26 +0200 Subject: how to encrypt file for specific recipients (grammar-fix) In-Reply-To: <4896DB6D.9030605@powercraft.nl> (Jelle de Jong's message of "Mon, 04 Aug 2008 12:35:25 +0200") References: <4896DB6D.9030605@powercraft.nl> Message-ID: <87vdyhxde5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:35, jelledejong at powercraft.nl said: > gpg --encrypt --???? sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz ?? gpg --encrypt -r 78830E32 -r 44CAAE70 sshfs-debug-v2.txt.tar.gz gpg --encrypt -r 78830E32 -r 44CAAE70 sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From jelledejong at powercraft.nl Mon Aug 4 13:00:58 2008 From: jelledejong at powercraft.nl (Jelle de Jong) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:00:58 +0200 Subject: how to encrypt file for specific recipients (grammar-fix) In-Reply-To: <87vdyhxde5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <4896DB6D.9030605@powercraft.nl> <87vdyhxde5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <4896E16A.2030502@powercraft.nl> Werner Koch wrote: > On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 12:35, jelledejong at powercraft.nl said: > >> gpg --encrypt --???? sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz ?? > > gpg --encrypt -r 78830E32 -r 44CAAE70 sshfs-debug-v2.txt.tar.gz > gpg --encrypt -r 78830E32 -r 44CAAE70 sshfs-debug-v3.txt.tar.gz > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner Thank you both Werner and Kiss, I must have overlooked the option somehow. The command now working fine. Thank you, Kind regards, Jelle From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 4 13:57:47 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:57:47 +0200 Subject: [gnupg-users] In-Reply-To: <87r695z0a9.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Mon, 04 Aug 2008 09:50:38 +0200") References: <87r695z0a9.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87iquhxa9w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 4 Aug 2008 09:50, wk at gnupg.org said: > options "-v --debug 54" and show us the output. If you don't want that "-v --debug 64" of course. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From apple at royds.net Mon Aug 4 16:19:07 2008 From: apple at royds.net (Bill Royds) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 10:19:07 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <4896D1BC.5090007@gmail.com> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> <4896C3CF.9000406@sixdemonbag.org> <4896D1BC.5090007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7F8A2D12-FF7F-4AF6-976D-CD19A2A8D621@royds.net> On 4-Aug-08, at 05:54 , Faramir wrote: > Wait... it seems I have been very wrong about the subject... does it > means I don't need to install certificates to enable sftp? I know this > is turning off-topic, so, can you please give some source of info to > learn how to make sftp work? I already searched in wikipedia, and > found > sftp can stand for "ftp over ssh" or "SSH file transfer protocol", and > that those are 2 different concepts... The confusion is between SSL (Secure Socket Layers), which provides the security in https protocol and can provide security in FTP over SSL, and SSH (Secure SHell), which provides the security for scp, sftp (ftp over SSH or SSH file transfer protocol). SSL depends on a hierarchical certificate trust system (X-509) where the certificates are certified by a "root" Certificate Authority (CA) such as Verisign or Deutsche Telekom or Staat De Nederlanden. This provides a lucrative business for selling trust. SSH, on the other hand, is closer to the PGP/GPG web of trust. It uses keys generated by the SSH server and your client to verify each other after you have been authenticated to the server in another manner (most often passwords, but even can be GPG or X509). SSH allows tunnelling of other network protocols over the basic SSH connection. One of those tunnelled protocols is FTP and SSH has the ability to facilitate this. But all of these protocols encrypt the transmission, not the actual data files being transmitted. This is where gnupg comes in. From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 4 20:36:12 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:36:12 -0400 Subject: Starting with gnupg In-Reply-To: <7F8A2D12-FF7F-4AF6-976D-CD19A2A8D621@royds.net> References: <489451FA.8050203@bellsouth.net> <48947782.1050508@gmail.com> <48948053.9090307@sixdemonbag.org> <4896AEEE.10907@gmail.com> <4896C3CF.9000406@sixdemonbag.org> <4896D1BC.5090007@gmail.com> <7F8A2D12-FF7F-4AF6-976D-CD19A2A8D621@royds.net> Message-ID: <48974C1C.2080305@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Bill Royds escribi?: > > On 4-Aug-08, at 05:54 , Faramir wrote: > >> Wait... it seems I have been very wrong about the subject... does it >> means I don't need to install certificates to enable sftp? I know this >> is turning off-topic, so, can you please give some source of info to >> learn how to make sftp work? I already searched in wikipedia, and found >> sftp can stand for "ftp over ssh" or "SSH file transfer protocol", and >> that those are 2 different concepts... > The confusion is between SSL (Secure Socket Layers), which provides the > security in https protocol and can provide security in FTP over SSL, Ok, that is the reason why I thought I needed to enable https (SSL) > and SSH (Secure SHell), which provides the security for scp, sftp (ftp > over SSH or SSH file transfer protocol). Ok, I think I am getting it... > SSL depends on a hierarchical certificate trust system (X-509) where the > certificates are certified by a "root" Certificate Authority (CA) such > as Verisign or Deutsche Telekom or Staat De Nederlanden. > This provides a lucrative business for selling trust. Yes, I know that part... it is SSH (and its uses with ftp) what I don't know... > SSH, on the other hand, is closer to the PGP/GPG web of trust. It uses > keys generated by the SSH server and your client to verify each other > after you have been authenticated to the server in another manner (most > often passwords, but even can be GPG or X509). SSH allows tunnelling of > other network protocols over the basic SSH connection. One of those > tunnelled protocols is FTP and SSH has the ability to facilitate this. Excellent, the host I want to secure has a GPG section in it CPanel, but I couldn't find a help source to know what was it for (I already know what to do with GPG in my computer and in my thunderbird). > But all of these protocols encrypt the transmission, not the actual data > files being transmitted. This is where gnupg comes in. Ok, the idea is to avoid sniffers trying to catch the login info (user and pass), the files will be protected, if there is need of protection, with gpg... I can use pass protected rar files, too... but my main concern was to avoid someone else getting control over the host by capturing the login details... If this is turning too much off topic, I don't mind receiving off-list messages with advices about this subject (or any other subject, security is really interesting, and I think it doesn't get the attention it deserves). Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIl0wcAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAKxMH/1bfIV1bfYULgSFAvc8dZZga A+TulMgik/GXfQJvUxhzN5JV/9vvg6Y8cu7fzki6af4VoJHfv14GHwvSGKsu3Vx4 xWTt6uSk6huc+fQV9anmSlqHsc/3ZO4nxeGS/QzZot6az4xZdSPPXGB66vVlrEPx 3b3d0w/erbetwL2F+/6YNRfVI0iSRK7sR6t4wvhrUGkvhF+aYt/FVEzUcQ0nsNbt 550Ijy+M9DgH6FzWtizq0+N4jCLFT7pp3jaCLcVdmWlupyR5FT44+MiTXz3qaM0m z/C+6L5VWI27GlL1Su55/BBJRc/12MD0Lnilk6ITlxE97G1au2qiimDkmCknB48= =94is -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From julio.baltazar1976 at googlemail.com Tue Aug 5 04:51:23 2008 From: julio.baltazar1976 at googlemail.com (julio baltazar) Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 22:51:23 -0400 Subject: good practices when using gpg --symmetric? Message-ID: Dear all Every few months I use GPG to encrypt a bunch of files which I keep as a backup on other people's computers yet wish to keep private. From reading the GPG manual, I understand that using GPG the single most important consideration is a good passphrase. But I have also been thinking how the following factors affect the security of my files: - number and size of files: is there a difference (security-wise) between encrypting 10,000 small files or encrypting a single, larger archive containing all of them? - file formats: should I be concerned about an attacker knowing which format a particular file is in? Files in a certain format typically have a magic number in the beginning or have other predefined content. Are there any other issues one should keep in mind to safely use gpg in --symmetric mode? I wish I knew more about cryptography, and sorry to bother you with such simple questions! ^Julio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Aug 5 06:41:52 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 22:41:52 -0600 Subject: good practices when using gpg --symmetric? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4897DA10.5090709@sixdemonbag.org> All my remarks here are restricted to GnuPG. Other cryptosystems will have other answers. julio baltazar wrote: > - number and size of files: is there a difference (security-wise) > between encrypting 10,000 small files or encrypting a single, larger > archive containing all of them? No. > - file formats: should I be concerned about an attacker knowing which > format a particular file is in? Files in a certain format typically have > a magic number in the beginning or have other predefined content. Not especially. > Are there any other issues one should keep in mind to safely use gpg in > --symmetric mode? Impossible to answer without knowing more about your particular needs. For the most part, the answer is "no." From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Tue Aug 5 14:37:03 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 08:37:03 -0400 Subject: good practices when using gpg --symmetric? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Aug 4, 2008, at 10:51 PM, julio baltazar wrote: > Dear all > > Every few months I use GPG to encrypt a bunch of files which I keep > as a backup on other people's computers yet wish to keep private. > From reading the GPG manual, I understand that using GPG the single > most important consideration is a good passphrase. > > But I have also been thinking how the following factors affect the > security of my files: > > - number and size of files: is there a difference (security-wise) > between encrypting 10,000 small files or encrypting a single, larger > archive containing all of them? No significant difference. There is a minor difference in practice in that multiple small files allow you to use a different passphrase on each, but remembering 10,000 passphrases is non-trivial in itself. > - file formats: should I be concerned about an attacker knowing > which format a particular file is in? Files in a certain format > typically have a magic number in the beginning or have other > predefined content. Good crypto systems can give the attacker a known file format and are still secure. > Are there any other issues one should keep in mind to safely use gpg > in --symmetric mode? Not really, but I wonder why you're using --symmetric rather than the regular public-key mode. There is no significant difference in security, but it might be more convenient for you if you have many files. David From julio.baltazar1976 at googlemail.com Tue Aug 5 15:38:42 2008 From: julio.baltazar1976 at googlemail.com (julio baltazar) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 09:38:42 -0400 Subject: good practices when using gpg --symmetric? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Robert, David, Thank you both for your advice. Not really, but I wonder why you're using --symmetric rather than the > regular public-key mode. There is no significant difference in security, > but it might be more convenient for you if you have many files. It is very possible that I have been using --symmetric for no good reason. I thought of this choice as 'being able to access my files by having access to the encrypted files and knowing the passphrase' vs 'additionally needing another piece of data which must be kept separately from the encrypted files'. The second option might be more secure, but also increases the risk of me not being able to access my stuff when need arises. Does this make sense or should I be using a key pair isntead of --symmetric? Gratefully Julio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From itz at buug.org Sat Aug 2 19:23:45 2008 From: itz at buug.org (Ian Zimmerman) Date: Sat, 02 Aug 2008 10:23:45 -0700 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: (Kiss Gabor's message of "Thu\, 24 Jul 2008 07\:40\:11 +0200 \(CEST\)") References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> Message-ID: <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> Ian> I have a local file that I want to encrypt and upload to a remote Ian> machine in encrypted form. Encrypting is farily quick, but Ian> uploading is slow, so I use rsync for the other (unencrypted) Ian> files. But the fact that the encrypted file is different each time Ian> defeats the rsync incremental upload. Gabor> Jari Ruusu's loop-aes uses the following method: - it encrypts Gabor> disk/file with AES - it has 1-65 pieces of 128-256 bit keys for Gabor> this symmetric cipher - disk keys are stored in a file that is Gabor> encrypted by GPG - Several users may have access to this file Gabor> (each with his own secret key) Ok, but how does that solve my problem? Even if I encrypt my file with a symmetric cipher I face the same issue - each encrypted copy will be different. -- Ian Zimmerman gpg public key: 1024D/C6FF61AD fingerprint: 66DC D68F 5C1B 4D71 2EE5 BD03 8A00 786C C6FF 61AD Ham is for reading, not for eating. From apple at royds.net Wed Aug 6 03:59:38 2008 From: apple at royds.net (Bill Royds) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:59:38 -0400 Subject: [GnuPG-users] identical files -> non-identical encrypted files In-Reply-To: <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> References: <87k5fgcmj5.fsf@matica.localdomain> <48850CDA.6020905@sixdemonbag.org> <871w1my76s.fsf@matica.localdomain> <87wsizpbz2.fsf@matica.localdomain> Message-ID: On 2-Aug-08, at 13:23 , Ian Zimmerman wrote: > > Ok, but how does that solve my problem? Even if I encrypt my file > with > a symmetric cipher I face the same issue - each encrypted copy will be > different. Why is not having identical encrypted copies a problem? The key will decrypt each copy to the same plain text plus the salt, which you can ignore. So everyone will look at the same message after decryption. You can use GPG to send the key over an encrypted channel as long as you have their public key (and they have GPG installed and a key pair). From nicholas.cole at gmail.com Wed Aug 6 19:05:54 2008 From: nicholas.cole at gmail.com (Nicholas Cole) Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:05:54 -0400 Subject: --allow-multiple-messages in gpg 1.4.9 Message-ID: I don't know if this is a bug, or my own misreading of the documentation, but --allow-multiple-messages doesn't quite seem to do what the documentation leads me to expect: Allow processing of multiple OpenPGP messages contained in a single file or stream. If I create a file with two armored openpgp signed bocks, only the first one appears to be processed by gpg, even with this option provided. The second is silently ignored. The option appears to be ignored whether or not I read from the file or provide the blocks on stdin and whether or not I use the explicit --decrypt option. Best wishes, Nicholas From wk at gnupg.org Thu Aug 7 09:06:01 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:06:01 +0200 Subject: --allow-multiple-messages in gpg 1.4.9 In-Reply-To: (Nicholas Cole's message of "Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:05:54 -0400") References: Message-ID: <877iat5mp2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:05, nicholas.cole at gmail.com said: > The option appears to be ignored whether or not I read from the file > or provide the blocks on stdin and whether or not I use the explicit > --decrypt option. Frankly, that option is only for backward compatibility when we removed that features. It is quite possible that there are other problems in using it. From the NEWS: * By default, do not allow processing multiple plaintexts in a single stream. Many programs that called GnuPG were assuming that GnuPG did not permit this, and were thus not using the plaintext boundary status tags that GnuPG provides. This change makes GnuPG reject such messages by default which makes those programs safe again. --allow-multiple-messages returns to the old behavior. [CVE-2007-1263]. I'll change the documentaion to make this more clear. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From nicholas.cole at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 14:37:26 2008 From: nicholas.cole at gmail.com (Nicholas Cole) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:37:26 -0400 Subject: --allow-multiple-messages in gpg 1.4.9 In-Reply-To: <877iat5mp2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <877iat5mp2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 3:06 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > * By default, do not allow processing multiple plaintexts in a > single stream. Many programs that called GnuPG were assuming > that GnuPG did not permit this, and were thus not using the > plaintext boundary status tags that GnuPG provides. This change > makes GnuPG reject such messages by default which makes those > programs safe again. --allow-multiple-messages returns to the > old behavior. [CVE-2007-1263]. > > I'll change the documentaion to make this more clear. The issue I was reporting was that this option doesn't seem to do anything at all, at least for armoured messages. I haven't done any further testing. Are you saying that this is a dummy option? Best, Nicholas From zulag4 at gmail.com Tue Aug 5 23:49:00 2008 From: zulag4 at gmail.com (zulag) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 23:49:00 +0200 Subject: Some questions Message-ID: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I have some questions : 1. The GnuPG documentation states that "--export-secret-key" is "a security risk". Since no passphrase is asked, I imagine the exported key is not clear text. So why is it a security risk ? Because it would make it impossible (useless) to change the secret key passphrase later if the exported encrypted file goes public ? 2. Is it a bad practice to encrypt a file and then "clearsign" the encrypted file instead of doing directly "-ea" (with which we cannot check the signature before extracting, if we ever wanted to) ? thanks by advance for answering From ganeshyz at yahoo.com Wed Aug 6 04:27:42 2008 From: ganeshyz at yahoo.com (proxy) Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 19:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Multiple clients Message-ID: <18843258.post@talk.nabble.com> Hello, I am trying to understand the Best Practice for the follwing situation We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted bank statements from them. Now the question here is should we need to have Separate Public Keys for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 different public keys OR for all the Bankers we are going to use one single public key for our whole orgranization? Which approach we need to follow? What are all the Pros and cons of the above two designs? any other approach is available? appreciate your help. KB -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-clients-tp18843258p18843258.html Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. From illes.farkas at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 15:49:52 2008 From: illes.farkas at gmail.com (Farkas, Illes) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:49:52 +0200 Subject: recursive gpg, as in gzip -r Message-ID: Dear List Members, Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a directory, similarly to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ? Thanks. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wk at gnupg.org Thu Aug 7 16:49:50 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:49:50 +0200 Subject: --allow-multiple-messages in gpg 1.4.9 In-Reply-To: (Nicholas Cole's message of "Thu, 7 Aug 2008 08:37:26 -0400") References: <877iat5mp2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <871w103mnl.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:37, nicholas.cole at gmail.com said: > The issue I was reporting was that this option doesn't seem to do > anything at all, at least for armoured messages. I haven't done any > further testing. Are you saying that this is a dummy option? Right, it has never worked with armoured messages. Or at least not for a long time. You need to split the messages first. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From dave.smith at st.com Thu Aug 7 16:57:31 2008 From: dave.smith at st.com (David SMITH) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 15:57:31 +0100 Subject: recursive gpg, as in gzip -r In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080807145731.GX28731@bristol.st.com> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 03:49:52PM +0200, Farkas, Illes wrote: > Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a directory, similarly > to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ? find -type f -exec gpg --encrypt-files '{}' --recipient \; HTH... -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2 Almondsbury | Work Email: Dave.Smith at st.com BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: David.Smith at ds-electronics.co.uk From harakiri_23 at yahoo.com Thu Aug 7 16:43:49 2008 From: harakiri_23 at yahoo.com (Harakiri) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 07:43:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Multiple clients In-Reply-To: <18843258.post@talk.nabble.com> Message-ID: <85754.95071.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Anyone else is really frightend by this question and prays that your bank is not part of those that this guy is consulting? --- On Tue, 8/5/08, proxy wrote: > From: proxy > Subject: Multiple clients > To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org > Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:27 PM > Hello, I am trying to understand the Best Practice for the > follwing situation > > We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted > bank statements from > them. Now the question here is should we need to have > Separate Public Keys > for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 > different public keys > OR for all the Bankers we are going to use one single > public key for our > whole orgranization? > > Which approach we need to follow? What are all the Pros and > cons of the > above two designs? any other approach is available? > > appreciate your help. > > KB > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-clients-tp18843258p18843258.html > Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From aongenae at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 16:55:03 2008 From: aongenae at gmail.com (Arnaud Ongenae) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 16:55:03 +0200 Subject: Multiple clients In-Reply-To: <18843258.post@talk.nabble.com> References: <18843258.post@talk.nabble.com> Message-ID: <83713a650808070755h5a066069ra112d10e16c18ca9@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 for me the question is different, how many person will have to deal with the keys ? The better is one pair of key per person ! so only one person know the secret... if you have five person, one for each bank, the better will be 5 key. because if you change the person in the future, you'll have some problem (change the key in each bank) if you have one person for all bank, so one pair of key seems good... It is not a good idea that different person know the secret... The best is to have one pair for each person, even if there are 100 persons that will participate... for the bank, encrypt for one or 100 is the same job, and it wil be easier for you to change one person in teh organisation (only ask the bank not to encrypt with his key anymore...) I don't know if I answer to you... but in security, you have to deal with copromise between user-friendly and security level Have a nice day - -- Arnaud -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJImwy8AAoJEFgy9SDyxO8haNUH/2VK5Asn8+pkFqcv4WuUikW/ Fg0a6BzAiTRKztAZIqA4U0wDZULnx3/NK5HSWiXpMPcIA5L/YTJLnVgK3lUQhD12 J6JmPT2OAVb1QfaJURYDsEwqfy+glKlid4Jf+DntlZ5p2jWXRxtk1PqUS10u7Pg+ 6bMKVKPNaqnqI3Y0v61XIsjw5+U/eoPx13vVm4Z3sOtf5T+8nqR9VqlDeLmqpTLS a1hk9qzLJ0WVMQZGnecSkMrMKE5IN1wHiXvL+IsgmR7DuTWe6ONz1k9/h4aouY6A 4vxKTXoOIH/UPTRC07ROGwkq1RthkTpk+H07NYOnHDjTIVSCa0r2a9Jago+8R4Y= =cOQM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 04:27, proxy wrote: > > Hello, I am trying to understand the Best Practice for the follwing situation > > We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted bank statements from > them. Now the question here is should we need to have Separate Public Keys > for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 different public keys > OR for all the Bankers we are going to use one single public key for our > whole orgranization? > > Which approach we need to follow? What are all the Pros and cons of the > above two designs? any other approach is available? > > appreciate your help. > > KB > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-clients-tp18843258p18843258.html > Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > From aongenae at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 17:22:21 2008 From: aongenae at gmail.com (Arnaud Ongenae) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:22:21 +0200 Subject: Multiple clients In-Reply-To: <85754.95071.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <18843258.post@talk.nabble.com> <85754.95071.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <83713a650808070822h68c8cc1cn9932fd8e684993ff@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I hope that the others bank do have such security consideration and don't send clear message with their consultant ! - -- Arnaud -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJImxMpAAoJEFgy9SDyxO8hL28H/Rvb0pNj9O+OoEy59awmAeWQ tsXjrOfOByx9qn+ka0aDmlgpBxW4yTn6QU9kQI+7b/vyzApRTU9RYsKb+xEyROVx lwoXxcWd+dmhvgXT7nlUlg2F/wPOICYP3c8StO7axOv6O2sFUTsPSCwWGPBVbX0e oWWTg2L7ZfpDEodajiknpkmwGNoO9WHg5aAVZI+0el5Up0Ube133YGEFeDBfwrQx ce8BUmexOZOz7Fm/M+y+nK5KUoyv9QTz9j2i30YVyZOHiubx634r8NXIxQQ7zT8x RtcfZHuWT8iyC3/lL1KDU6z5L7aAgUf9twtI68g7Dye4afu6cOjQQXyV13NnVVM= =cO/z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 16:43, Harakiri wrote: > Anyone else is really frightend by this question and prays that your bank is not part of those that this guy is consulting? > > > --- On Tue, 8/5/08, proxy wrote: > >> From: proxy >> Subject: Multiple clients >> To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org >> Date: Tuesday, August 5, 2008, 10:27 PM >> Hello, I am trying to understand the Best Practice for the >> follwing situation >> >> We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted >> bank statements from >> them. Now the question here is should we need to have >> Separate Public Keys >> for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 >> different public keys >> OR for all the Bankers we are going to use one single >> public key for our >> whole orgranization? >> >> Which approach we need to follow? What are all the Pros and >> cons of the >> above two designs? any other approach is available? >> >> appreciate your help. >> >> KB >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-clients-tp18843258p18843258.html >> Sent from the GnuPG - User mailing list archive at >> Nabble.com. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gnupg-users mailing list >> Gnupg-users at gnupg.org >> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > From christopher.eliot at nagrastar.com Thu Aug 7 17:54:13 2008 From: christopher.eliot at nagrastar.com (Eliot, Christopher) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 09:54:13 -0600 Subject: recursive gpg In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5C27B2F8693FA3458E71B4A81551253F038E4227@NSTAR-MAIL1.windows.nagrastar.com> gpg `find . -type f` will get you pretty close. Topher Eliot christopher.eliot at nagrastar.com [] > Dear List Members, > > Do you happen to know how to use gpg recursively on a > directory, similarly > to "gzip -r" and "gunzip -r" ? > > Thanks. From dave.smith at st.com Thu Aug 7 18:28:17 2008 From: dave.smith at st.com (David SMITH) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:28:17 +0100 Subject: recursive gpg In-Reply-To: <5C27B2F8693FA3458E71B4A81551253F038E4227@NSTAR-MAIL1.windows.nagrastar.com> References: <5C27B2F8693FA3458E71B4A81551253F038E4227@NSTAR-MAIL1.windows.nagrastar.com> Message-ID: <20080807162817.GY28731@bristol.st.com> On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:54:13AM -0600, Eliot, Christopher wrote: > gpg `find . -type f` > will get you pretty close. Close, but if you've got lots of files, you'll hit the maximum command line length limit. -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2 Almondsbury | Work Email: Dave.Smith at st.com BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: David.Smith at ds-electronics.co.uk From nicholas.cole at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 00:36:45 2008 From: nicholas.cole at gmail.com (Nicholas Cole) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:36:45 -0400 Subject: --allow-multiple-messages in gpg 1.4.9 In-Reply-To: <871w103mnl.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <877iat5mp2.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <871w103mnl.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 10:49 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Thu, 7 Aug 2008 14:37, nicholas.cole at gmail.com said: > >> The issue I was reporting was that this option doesn't seem to do >> anything at all, at least for armoured messages. I haven't done any >> further testing. Are you saying that this is a dummy option? > > Right, it has never worked with armoured messages. Or at least not for > a long time. You need to split the messages first. Thanks for the clarification. I wonder if it would be useful if there were a flag that would tell gpg to raise an error if it encounters data that it can't understand or is ignoring. Best, N From gnupg.mdmph at gmail.com Thu Aug 7 23:15:44 2008 From: gnupg.mdmph at gmail.com (GNUMD) Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 17:15:44 -0400 Subject: MAC Installer for GNUPG? Message-ID: <330519960808071415v36ad87c9mbb5d2509e747b1ea@mail.gmail.com> Is there a MAC OS installer, I am trying to get a colleague who uses MAC to get and user GNUPG. She doesn't know what she is doing or what to install. I appreciate any help, I know nothing about Macs, and really don't want to know much about them. I thought the GNUPG site would have an installer, or are there source files that need compiled on Mac OS? -scm GNUPG ID: 0x1036DFBA -- -- "An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." - Thomas Paine (Dissertation on First Principles of Government -July 1795) <<<>>> DO NOT USE HTML OR PICTURES OR NON-TEXT ATTACHMENTS!!! WWW.GNUPG.ORG I WOULD LIKE TO NEVER RECEIVE OR SEND E-MAIL FROM THIS ACCOUNT WITHOUT ENCRYPTION! I MAY SEND YOU A LINK TO CONTENT ON THE WEB. OBITUARY: ADBOTS DEATH ANNOUNCEMENT PLEASE DO NOT COLLECT MARKETING DATA FROM THE PLAIN TEXT OF MY MESSAGES. I HAVE NO INTEREST IN FOLLOWING ANY SUGGESTED ADVERTISING LINKS RELATED TO MY E-MAIL. THANK YOU. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Aug 8 01:09:21 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:09:21 -0500 Subject: MAC Installer for GNUPG? In-Reply-To: <330519960808071415v36ad87c9mbb5d2509e747b1ea@mail.gmail.com> References: <330519960808071415v36ad87c9mbb5d2509e747b1ea@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489B80A1.4010400@sixdemonbag.org> GNUMD wrote: > Is there a MAC OS installer, I am trying to get a colleague who uses > MAC to get and user GNUPG. She doesn't know what she is doing or what > to install. http://macgpg.sourceforge.net. The version there is a little out of date, but it's still the easiest to install package. A direct link to it is: http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/macgpg/GnuPG1.4.8.dmg?download From mo at g10code.com Fri Aug 8 02:05:56 2008 From: mo at g10code.com (Moritz Schulte) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 02:05:56 +0200 Subject: [Announce] Poldi 0.4 released Message-ID: <489B8DE4.7020301@g10code.com> Poldi 0.4 has been released. Poldi is our PAM module, which implements authentication through the OpenPGP smartcard. It can be fetched from: ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/poldi/poldi-0.4.tar.bz2 ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/alpha/poldi/poldi-0.4.tar.bz2.asc Changes since version 0.3 are: * Many parts have been rewritten and/or reorganized * GPLv3+ Changed License to GPL v3 or later. * SCdaemon support Poldi uses the scdaemon from now on instead of talking to the smartcard directly. * Authentication methods Implemented abstraction layer for "authentication methods". The previous authentication process is now encapsulated in an authentication method named "localdb". * X509 Added another authentication method named "x509", which interacts with Dirmngr in order to provide authentication through a X509 PKI. * i18n Added support for internationalization. Added german translation. Please note that Poldi is still marked as experimental. Happy Hacking, moritz -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 260 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Gnupg-announce mailing list Gnupg-announce at gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-announce From benjamin at py-soft.co.uk Fri Aug 8 09:08:05 2008 From: benjamin at py-soft.co.uk (Benjamin Donnachie) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:08:05 +0100 Subject: MAC Installer for GNUPG? In-Reply-To: <489B80A1.4010400@sixdemonbag.org> References: <330519960808071415v36ad87c9mbb5d2509e747b1ea@mail.gmail.com> <489B80A1.4010400@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <489BF0D5.90209@py-soft.co.uk> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > http://macgpg.sourceforge.net. The version there is a little out of > date, but it's still the easiest to install package. You can get the latest MacOSX builds from my website: http://www.py-soft.co.uk/~benjamin/download/mac-gpg/gpg1.4.9-1.zip http://www.py-soft.co.uk/~benjamin/download/mac-gpg/mac-gnupg-2.0.9-TESTB-3.zip Macgpg v1.4.9 is an official build but the macgpg maintainer has not yet added it to http://macgpg.sourceforge.net Macgpg v2.0.9-TESTB-3 is still officially a beta. However, no bugs have been reported. (I just need to get round to tidying up the installer and adding some documentation). Ben From andrea.giovannoni at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 10:47:59 2008 From: andrea.giovannoni at gmail.com (andrea giovannoni) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:47:59 +0200 Subject: Problem with default key Message-ID: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> Hi, I have a problem with my default key. gpg --default-key 0x12345578 gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... Can you help me? Thanks Andrea -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From yalla at fsfe.org Fri Aug 8 11:27:24 2008 From: yalla at fsfe.org (Alexander W. Janssen) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:27:24 +0200 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489C117C.7000204@fsfe.org> andrea giovannoni wrote: > Hi, Hi, > I have a problem with my default key. > > gpg --default-key 0x12345578 gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... > > Can you help me? What's your exact question? That's the default behaviour if you omit all other parameters. It automatically starts reading from stdin. The manual page says: > gpg may be run with no commands, in which case it will perform a > reasonable action depending on the type of file it is given as > input (an encrypted message is decrypted, a signature is verified, a > file containing keys is listed). Hope that helps. > Andrea Alex. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 12:03:25 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:03:25 -0400 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 zulag escribi?: > 1. The GnuPG documentation states that "--export-secret-key" is "a > security risk". Since no passphrase is asked, I imagine the exported > key is not clear text. So why is it a security risk ? Because it would > make it impossible (useless) to change the secret key passphrase later > if the exported encrypted file goes public ? I suppose it is clear text, and that would be the reason for the "security risk" warning. The idea about export a secret key is to import it in other place, so it must be cleartext... unless you want to back up it, in that case, you can encrypt it right after exporting it... But all this is what I suppose, since I don't remember having exported a secret key from command line. > 2. Is it a bad practice to encrypt a file and then "clearsign" the > encrypted file instead of doing directly "-ea" (with which we cannot > check the signature before extracting, if we ever wanted to) ? I remember somebody asked the same question a couple of months ago, and the answer was: If you encrypt it and then sign it, if somebody steal the message, he would get the sender's key ID from the signature. If you sign it and then encrypt it, the thief would not have any info about the sender. I suppose decrypting a file is not a security threat, so there should not be a problem if you decrypt a message and just then you notice it doesn't come from the sender... (invalid signature). Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInBntAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAJxoH/RMNrkG0qUQQu4D+E7roB0hA vEhlzD2EmASVMZQLOMBVKecZ4MP4lM78WeZCBhaggeeuNvxJo6DQby+k+OY+hjot dNGTbgKeJOY/gFg/wCtkUu86VbODH0/vVH1NB66NAoypuvEyTW3v4DlTcEmo8Fsh j1BXOnSMYc/KDu103zdaLkeQtesHQcpAXjwDoYlwxjxSrfQl7lQmoL8q5g9Wgsqv nIAz7umtmleU0qdI4zdgNUYYENQrB5TSgh1618/DQj0X1+YCdDt7hY8QMFQ/Y7CT GhzBI7EkcJm22eRoTi7pljKv2s3Af/cY0JKgki7S8gDczCjkCEoqT8y+8thN8ho= =N7WC -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 12:12:42 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 06:12:42 -0400 Subject: Multiple clients In-Reply-To: <85754.95071.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <85754.95071.qm@web52205.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <489C1C1A.8030701@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Harakiri escribi?: > Anyone else is really frightend by this question and prays that your bank is not part of those that this guy is consulting? Not me, and I don't see any reason to be afraid of using a bank that wants to send encrypted messages to its customers... now, why a single organization uses 5 different banks... I don't know, but I, by default - -since I don't do business with that organization-, suppose there is a legitimate reason for that. Of course my 'default' way of thinking is different when it is me the one doing business... About the original question, I don't have an opinion about what is better, so I won't try to give an answer. Best Regards >> From: proxy >> Subject: Multiple clients >> >> We have 5 bankers and we are going to receive encrypted >> bank statements from >> them. Now the question here is should we need to have >> Separate Public Keys >> for each bank (and corresponding Private keys) i.e. 5 >> different public keys >> OR for all the Bankers we are going to use one single >> public key for our >> whole orgranization? .... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInBwaAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAda4IAIDnGBeo8Xp+tmtTUoVRpQou yMOLObHEPAVGlTFbBD6M1YyRqIxNm8Obxz3Bxf8bAn0JOPq3iuD7/XUA1oD4ZKwq CyWLWCt3BGfIWXIx5PHKuHhUBfDazKmH4hD/C2bwRD1vSH6Pt+kZYk0SS8n9hm9p gk9F1+MKOZwXNd3QKEbfS9VZQJSn2jG9iV8pt+iG9SDNflnGJei1pBfMrvYHMjAu t8E0J1qjYjv72WIoRQEJW6QjZWsUmY0QSy8R7LiHwXdRYZoBN6+3MHQm5rVCddKv WKUwbuyvVDvDUzjef415KeEa+SbI22MB4PQczjC9xIdQli0b3X1l5jZVeYchEkE= =1MPr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dave.smith at st.com Fri Aug 8 12:59:26 2008 From: dave.smith at st.com (David SMITH) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:59:26 +0100 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 06:03:25AM -0400, Faramir wrote: > zulag escribi?: > > 1. The GnuPG documentation states that "--export-secret-key" is "a > > security risk". Since no passphrase is asked, I imagine the exported > > key is not clear text. So why is it a security risk ? Because it would > > make it impossible (useless) to change the secret key passphrase later > > if the exported encrypted file goes public ? > > I suppose it is clear text, and that would be the reason for the > "security risk" warning. The idea about export a secret key is to import > it in other place, so it must be cleartext... unless you want to back up > it, in that case, you can encrypt it right after exporting it... But all > this is what I suppose, since I don't remember having exported a secret > key from command line. >From a completely dumb user's perspective... "gpg --export-secret-key --armor" does not require a passphrase - you can just run it, and it gives you the secret key. I assume that this secret key must be passphrase-encrypted. Otherwise, what's the point of having passphrase protection on the secret keyring, when you can just export the secret key from the secret keyring unencrypted without having to know the passphrase? Maybe it's considered a security risk because it doesn't necessarily have the usual UNIX (or other OS) permissions set to make it accessible only by its owner? Or maybe it's just there to discourage people from transporting secret keys around? -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2 Almondsbury | Work Email: Dave.Smith at st.com BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: David.Smith at ds-electronics.co.uk From email at sven-radde.de Fri Aug 8 13:11:09 2008 From: email at sven-radde.de (Sven Radde) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:11:09 +0200 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489C29CD.9030704@sven-radde.de> Hi! andrea giovannoni schrieb: > I have a problem with my default key. > > gpg --default-key 0x12345578 > gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... Maybe, there was a misunderstanding, about what this call does..? If you want to set your default-key permanently, you would have to do this by editing your gpg.conf file. You cannot do this by calling the gpg executable. HTH, Sven From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 14:04:55 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:04:55 -0400 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> Message-ID: <489C3667.3030200@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 David SMITH escribi?: > Maybe it's considered a security risk because it doesn't necessarily > have the usual UNIX (or other OS) permissions set to make it accessible > only by its owner? Or maybe it's just there to discourage people from > transporting secret keys around? > I ran the command, and got a huge ascii block... so I modified it to: gpg --export-secret-key --armor > test.asc and got a enarmored block of ascii characters... a lot longer than a single private key, so maybe it is the whole private keyring... I will import it in a virtual machine (with empty keyring), in order to know what is that block... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInDZnAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAYyoH/17KK7jekDJg5lZgunpvRN4x ttFqk3SZpjyz6QERdUS884PuIHXurMpZZxLCi3dYgT9PP08Ge1IcUIzMhBUNglG7 ZwdcaczxYn/q1T02TV2MclXNHFzkabvdLNvHJWXHug9MdD12I1SsU1eKM9DVgxMm z85KP7vX4GMMmRgjCzz16FXRE/qgZ5/ngkbzzfwcoBbL+ey7MuoRxMVNAu1b+SXp u46RLbMjAzUEh3FzWhdm8K4K4p09UDaeeU6uC69/DubLX1/FGpTpcRHHZnJRXvlP 8CRdVGObwFn+F0fVWo0E6+pMvw0B55yt2WGTjNtnH7k0kvP6Ldi7cdwDlx/a+Bo= =bIUL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 14:09:45 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 08:09:45 -0400 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489C2B2F.9090700@sven-radde.de> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <489C2B2F.9090700@sven-radde.de> Message-ID: <489C3789.9080604@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Sven Radde escribi?: > Hi! > > Faramir schrieb: >> I suppose it is clear text, > No, it is still encrypted with your passphrase. >> The idea about export a secret key is to import >> it in other place, so it must be cleartext... > Why? You can easily import an exportet (encrypted) secret key into > another GnuPG application. Why not? The other GnuPG would simply ask for > your passphrase whenever you would try to access the key there, just > like the "first" GnuPG does... Good point... I think I must check my cafeine level, it seems it's too low to think clearly... I will solve that now... > I assume that the warning is there, because an exported key is somewhat > likely to end up in some public-readable place and this is generally a > bad thing - even if it is protected by a passphrase. You should at least > take the risk willingly. Right, and also, there is the option to have secret keys without passphrase... these keys would be very vulnerable, I think... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInDeIAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAQhoIAKgEq1VTTELAL3p3uwEe6XaV AvD8Mwbob1SyyUw5LdS6HVc2DxhVJzTfuschCRgJNwXFWzm4BiKob++EWm+GPAj7 fZvArvKhyk5zQdk3BK61dptz7FnxF2xmUDle8IP1Zvmdw7UP2s1GVF+lHukAeGsL Nj/mapU6kBHcSYGdqFeCaZORrBgJfzi7mxElMFPIzaok3mejTM8VK9WSFDaUCbtC hKwX+sO2x4NXzsTfuYDiE/C53ieGp+uoX9dp2L66xa63gxJ/U0NkgS3ENclT8/+k yxvy+k/slwS1wUDCNfnfMXPNPnkY7T3CswN0rHnXSr49O3ZOBp39vFEXCShoi2Q= =HcuD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andrea.giovannoni at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 15:49:57 2008 From: andrea.giovannoni at gmail.com (andrea giovannoni) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:49:57 +0200 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <489C29CD.9030704@sven-radde.de> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> <489C29CD.9030704@sven-radde.de> Message-ID: <7cf1021a0808080649q68dfa86ds1eabcce064557766@mail.gmail.com> Hi Sven, I don't want set my default-key permanently, I would like change the default-key sometimes, but I cannot do this because the gpg executable ( gpg --default-key 0x12345578 ) don't work correctly. Thank's 2008/8/8 Sven Radde > Hi! > > andrea giovannoni schrieb: > >> I have a problem with my default key. >> gpg --default-key 0x12345578 >> gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... >> > Maybe, there was a misunderstanding, about what this call does..? > If you want to set your default-key permanently, you would have to do this > by editing your gpg.conf file. You cannot do this by calling the gpg > executable. > > HTH, Sven > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From zulag4 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 15:55:13 2008 From: zulag4 at gmail.com (zulag) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:55:13 +0200 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <4a26584e0808080643t1c03e51ekac41e31d9d952fde@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a26584e0808080643t1c03e51ekac41e31d9d952fde@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4a26584e0808080655k55df42e8wf7c764e2eba6d042@mail.gmail.com> >> I assume that the warning is there, because an exported key is somewhat >> likely to end up in some public-readable place and this is generally a >> bad thing - even if it is protected by a passphrase. You should at least >> take the risk willingly. OK, but what exactly are the risks, what to expect to protect from ? Is it because of the possible password "cracking" and the password becoming unmodifiable (because people have a copy of the key encrypted with the password "P" you had when you exported your key, so whatever stronger password "Q" you set later, they can attack and compromise your key by finding "P") ? thanks From zulag4 at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 15:43:00 2008 From: zulag4 at gmail.com (zulag) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 15:43:00 +0200 Subject: Some questions Message-ID: <4a26584e0808080643t1c03e51ekac41e31d9d952fde@mail.gmail.com> Hi, (first, excuse me for the message not appearing as a reply, I had not subscribed to the mailing-list when I sent the first message) > I ran the command, and got a huge ascii block... so I modified it to: > gpg --export-secret-key --armor > test.asc and got a enarmored block of > ascii characters... a lot longer than a single private key, so maybe it > is the whole private keyring... I will import it in a virtual machine > (with empty keyring), in order to know what is that block... (If you want to make tests, you can create a temporary directory, and set the GNUPGHOME environment variable to that temporary directory.) You can import the exported private key, but when you cannot sign or decrypt anything without entering the passphrase. I agree with what David said : > [...] Otherwise, what's the point > of having passphrase protection on the secret keyring, when you can > just export the secret key from the secret keyring unencrypted without > having to know the passphrase? About my question 2 : > If you encrypt it and then sign it, if somebody steal the message, he > would get the sender's key ID from the signature. If you sign it and > then encrypt it, the thief would not have any info about the sender. This is not a problem in my situation, so I suppose I can do it if there are no other problems. thanks From wk at gnupg.org Fri Aug 8 16:52:03 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 16:52:03 +0200 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> (David SMITH's message of "Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:59:26 +0100") References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> Message-ID: <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 12:59, dave.smith at st.com said: > only by its owner? Or maybe it's just there to discourage people from > transporting secret keys around? Right. Moving the secret key in a public key system around is in general not required and somewhat contradicts the whole point of public key encryption. If soemone wants to move his secret key he should think twice about it and prepare a proper plan on how to do this. The passphrase used to protect the secret key is by no means an sufficient protection compared to the public key system usually used. The passphrase is just a way to make it harder to use a lost secret key. It won't stop a well equipped attacker: The passphrase needs to have a convenient length so it can be typed in quickly. Almost nobody uses a passphrase which equals an 128 bit random symmetric key. Further, entering the passphrase is subject to side channel atatcks like should surfing or recording the sound of the keyboard. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From dave.smith at st.com Fri Aug 8 17:01:00 2008 From: dave.smith at st.com (David SMITH) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:01:00 +0100 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <4a26584e0808080655k55df42e8wf7c764e2eba6d042@mail.gmail.com> References: <4a26584e0808080643t1c03e51ekac41e31d9d952fde@mail.gmail.com> <4a26584e0808080655k55df42e8wf7c764e2eba6d042@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080808150100.GL28731@bristol.st.com> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 03:55:13PM +0200, zulag wrote: > OK, but what exactly are the risks, what to expect to protect from ? > Is it because of the possible password "cracking" and the password > becoming unmodifiable (because people have a copy of the key encrypted > with the password "P" you had when you exported your key, so whatever > stronger password "Q" you set later, they can attack and compromise > your key by finding "P") ? In a nutshell, "yes". Once they've got a copy of your secret keyring, there's no point in changing the passphrase on your own copy of the keyring. They can brute-force the passphrase encryption to get your keys. Changing your passphrase doesn't change the underlying keys; you have to revoke and regenerate for that. The encryption algorithm of the "real" keys is intended to be unbreakable[1] because the keys are truly random, and the key space that needs to be checked is too large to be brute-forced. The encryption used to protect the secret keys with the passphrase is potentially weaker, though, as 1. The key space will tend to be smaller - people are unlikely to choose enormously long passphrases 2. People are stupid, and tend to use simple passphrases which are vulnerable to dictionary attack 3. The encryption algorithm itself might be weaker, although I've no knowledge or evidence to back this up. Frankly, I don't even know what algorithm is used, so my comment is purely speculation. [1] subject to the usual discussions of key length, algorithm strength and speed of development of computing hardware -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2 Almondsbury | Work Email: Dave.Smith at st.com BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: David.Smith at ds-electronics.co.uk From yalla at fsfe.org Fri Aug 8 17:12:49 2008 From: yalla at fsfe.org (Alexander W. Janssen) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:12:49 +0200 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Werner Koch wrote: > Further, > entering the passphrase is subject to side channel atatcks like should > surfing or recording the sound of the keyboard. Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner Alex. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) iQCVAwUBSJxibhYlVVSQ3uFxAQKt6gP9Fb+B1COuxux925wJNdSI5U3wf5qY5gki BvgSM+xFhTHe1QUBWNCwKH7hmq+7XpeTCA+7p98bSxkfGX0i+ISa04XY8MoK6nHv M0v9RN2UmZsDId5/F8Mh1INqcy//EAEUo7wGqac6MTjtjq+jxfQG40pMDCVB6xS/ aa3F1uz2K48= =36+Z -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org Fri Aug 8 17:17:10 2008 From: patrick at mozilla-enigmail.org (Patrick Brunschwig) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:17:10 +0200 Subject: recursive gpg In-Reply-To: <20080807162817.GY28731__3390.36218724704$1218126684$gmane$org@bristol.st.com> References: <5C27B2F8693FA3458E71B4A81551253F038E4227@NSTAR-MAIL1.windows.nagrastar.com> <20080807162817.GY28731__3390.36218724704$1218126684$gmane$org@bristol.st.com> Message-ID: <489C6376.1000108@mozilla-enigmail.org> David SMITH wrote: > On Thu, Aug 07, 2008 at 09:54:13AM -0600, Eliot, Christopher wrote: >> gpg `find . -type f` >> will get you pretty close. > > Close, but if you've got lots of files, you'll hit the maximum command > line length limit. You have these two options: a) find . -type f -excec gpg {} \; "{}" stands for the found filename b) find . -type f | xargs gpg HTH -Patrick From dave.smith at st.com Fri Aug 8 17:44:35 2008 From: dave.smith at st.com (David SMITH) Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2008 16:44:35 +0100 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> Message-ID: <20080808154435.GO28731@bristol.st.com> On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Alexander W. Janssen wrote: > Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of > the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? Sounds like an interesting student project... :-) Some keys certainly sound different; the space bar for one. Shift, Enter and Backspace all have distinctive sounds, especially as Shift is depressed before pressing another key, and then released. If a user is using a passphrase made up of space-separated words, then knowing where the spaces are reduces the search space considerably, as does knowing when the shift key is pressed. If the attacker is able to get two microphones set up in useful locations, they might even be able to analyze the stereoscopic differences between the two recordings to gain some idea of which area of the keyboard each keypress is made. Even if it's only "left half" or "right half", that divides the search space by 2^number_of_keypresses. The technique doesn't have to be absolutely perfect; just good enough to reduce the search space down to something that can realistically be brute-forced. Like I said, interesting project... :-) -- David Smith | Tel: +44 (0)1454 462380 Home: +44 (0)1454 616963 STMicroelectronics | Fax: +44 (0)1454 462305 Mobile: +44 (0)7932 642724 1000 Aztec West | TINA: 065 2380 GPG Key: 0xF13192F2 Almondsbury | Work Email: Dave.Smith at st.com BRISTOL, BS32 4SQ | Home Email: David.Smith at ds-electronics.co.uk From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 17:45:25 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:45:25 -0400 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> Message-ID: <489C6A15.9080703@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Alexander W. Janssen escribi?: > Werner Koch wrote: >> Further, >> entering the passphrase is subject to side channel atatcks like should >> surfing or recording the sound of the keyboard. > > Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of > the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? Supposedly, anything can be used to increase the success chances of an attack, including the sounds in the keyboard (it can give the number of digits of the passphrase), variations in CPU temp, etc... But probably we won't have James Bond chasing our passphrases... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInGoUAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAVE8H/RasOaRNIZiKitumeaaoQwmh AM+g61DRM3QbwYpz/GPr88iETIvMYKjhNsFYbV8zGyDVnQvxUUXzPZ9D5EtPv5Ee p/CBxwoWuWivUQ808ot7JGZtRhysO2Sjt7iTfF07mguTlFSvnrMuAP3A+3lKGGYK GME37fKIZudI7VxqW8GeFR1DERHaRbtU6D9X353ml8Be/gMNwS5GpNNaXbIXnRzJ L9ehxShNlAK/g8hg7fncbwsD2bXUu6EfeFp9W26uy4FLt4XLSP4gWVjwks+A1dsx MHSBLhizLKetSfDYwVA0owLYgWhv23gs21+SZl3w9nzNuGYvJ2SDfj9Pq6wzNOY= =XbDy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From JPClizbe at tx.rr.com Fri Aug 8 18:10:52 2008 From: JPClizbe at tx.rr.com (John Clizbe) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 11:10:52 -0500 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <7cf1021a0808080649q68dfa86ds1eabcce064557766@mail.gmail.com> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> <489C29CD.9030704@sven-radde.de> <7cf1021a0808080649q68dfa86ds1eabcce064557766@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489C700C.6030205@tx.rr.com> andrea giovannoni wrote: > Hi Sven, > I don't want set my default-key permanently, I would like change the > default-key sometimes, but I cannot do this because the gpg executable > ( gpg --default-key 0x12345578 ) don't work correctly. > Thanks Let me see if I understand your configuration. You have a default key set in gpg.conf and you sometimes wish to use another to sign? Try gpg -u 0xdecafbad or gpg --local-user 0xdecafbad -- John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?" A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 654 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From yalla at fsfe.org Fri Aug 8 18:11:28 2008 From: yalla at fsfe.org (Alexander W. Janssen) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 18:11:28 +0200 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <20080808154435.GO28731@bristol.st.com> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> <20080808154435.GO28731@bristol.st.com> Message-ID: <489C7030.3080002@fsfe.org> David SMITH wrote: > On Fri, Aug 08, 2008 at 05:12:49PM +0200, Alexander W. Janssen wrote: >> Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of >> the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? > > Sounds like an interesting student project... :-) That's what I thought too! > [...] > The technique doesn't have to be absolutely perfect; just good enough to > reduce the search space down to something that can realistically be > brute-forced. Yeah. I'm off, looking for my tinfoil-hat... ;-) Cool idea though! Alex. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 305 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 8 18:53:51 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 12:53:51 -0400 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <489C700C.6030205@tx.rr.com> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> <489C29CD.9030704@sven-radde.de> <7cf1021a0808080649q68dfa86ds1eabcce064557766@mail.gmail.com> <489C700C.6030205@tx.rr.com> Message-ID: <489C7A1F.90708@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 >> Hi Sven, >> I don't want set my default-key permanently, I would like change the >> default-key sometimes, but I cannot do this because the gpg executable >> ( gpg --default-key 0x12345578 ) don't work correctly. >> Thanks What OS do you use? I don't have a default key, I use GPGshell to sign/encrypt files, and it asks me which key do I want to use for signatures (unless I set a default). Enigmail uses my email address to select the right key, and... But GPGshell is only available for windows (unless there are other versions and I am not aware of them...). Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJInHofAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAT4oH/ArO6xn7+erN+bUxQ94Mh/YY 5xVddAMcpvRlR5Hsku31t3SuwowMu2ILMohMIA8ZagLCfnYNfT8D0fpdO5E1Tg6F aDXKuhWacPCTUFoxV+rSdW2OO+fe//0azENsbkUSnlBm0jzufMEHIBWVehuP8d7x 9xifljcRYabVZx0foa9EoMijCLwdcPvTn4T6EbxoF0zJdV/4+zBZpC0FCCHMW3ar q5tX3JJ7f79XjhW68HM3lI768NTT45sMf0aysgaLZkHNiRj5OC/nEIszAUFddI46 zy7JYZ9XbirYT6GTSiKw7ul69F3T96/qvRKxP7aDnsJ9lw5ad3hGsCV1935+u8s= =nEsX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sat Aug 9 05:51:16 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 22:51:16 -0500 Subject: Problem with default key In-Reply-To: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> References: <7cf1021a0808080147h5b47514cua39c414a7f9f0516@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <489D1434.20108@gmail.com> andrea giovannoni wrote: > Hi, > I have a problem with my default key. > > gpg --default-key 0x12345578 > gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... > > > Can you help me? Because you have not specified a file, GPG tries to read from stdin. Because there is nothing there, you see that message. The --default-key is more for gpg.conf (the name makes more sense in this context) than to be supplied on the command line. If you wish to make the default signing key 0x12345578, add default-key 0x12345578 to your gpg.conf. As John mentioned, you can override that preference for a particular invocation with --local-user (or -u for short). Based on your reply to the others' messages, I think your problem is just that you are not giving GPG a file to work with. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 From mlisten at hammernoch.net Sat Aug 9 13:14:27 2008 From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=) Date: Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:14:27 +0200 Subject: public newer than the signature Message-ID: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hello, the last weeks, when importing public keys I sometimes get: "?ffentlicher Schl?ssel %s ist %lu Sekunden j?nger als die Unterschrift" in english: "public key %s is %lu second newer than the signature" The indicated time interval is very large. What's running wrong? I tried googling, but found nothing useful. I'm using gpg 1.4.9 on Mac OS X. TIA Ludwig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBSJ18ElYnpxVXVowdAQpfaQf/e/Tg11byh7b5WKRtuOQu5elW/7kHF1GU 4HhW/+JktIa4fXt9kLU5Hm2j/AYS0UHO/qB0TdICwWhY67DyiQpXzeppkBGREeLE ECujLg7seVXXMw5SqOM5r6+le4lkH08gXNIgz10CNvOn2LKd92JU04iIog3Tce+4 zWv2OW1iQ7QkRhUusdYbI1nYWfk9mG5ZFhy4+vCZvJgjvIubabb48AhQazaRRlQn oCUGoefyja/XvvDa/P/qYU49qZtOjZ3yWc1DyXRlkbsup97+3GEh+6IeON7KZaLy H3TbSVFDe2pmoPCKjHMz3G2ruylXvzpUHhsd4tRcv9QWnR/So5TlUQ== =DYnB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mlisten at hammernoch.net Sun Aug 10 19:27:52 2008 From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-15?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:27:52 +0200 Subject: public key newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> Message-ID: <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote on 09.08.2008 13:14 Uhr: > Hello, > > the last weeks, when importing public keys I sometimes get: > > "?ffentlicher Schl?ssel %s ist %lu Sekunden j?nger als die Unterschrift" > > in english: > > "public key %s is %lu second newer than the signature" > > The indicated time interval is very large. What's running wrong? I tried > googling, but found nothing useful. I'm using gpg 1.4.9 on Mac OS X. When a routinely trust-db check took place today, I got the message: ?ffentlicher Schl?ssel FAEBD5FC ist 32370053 Sekunden j?nger als die Unterschrift I assume, FAEBD5FC is very well known and in a lot of keyrings. Can somebody check please? 32370053 seconds is 374,6533912037 days, 9 more than a year... Greetings Ludwig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBSJ8lF1YnpxVXVowdAQqfuggA0N+5rHF8SpUOYeG2IuQ2PxBRNnGPTw5n OzH3VMIhI33UKuvoMOzLU3QGo5jnoHF+0W4LkvVbzd8dwICWEgcRVqGbwg4r5nnK QjKxq1eVFAQL91EfL1jUqMN12drx466GPgykGMdI5JUTYqohLHVJ2Yg3LDbKH1hS FSCkBalGFCzWqhoqmO4sk/hnYg/PAekHiittHVQ+oxVjqIK/NIE5AHQyi9wcBnax x5ssSTL9B+dBStObW+eTF2o7g7U8fQfq+GSrd85tXcXChH4iOystOKdI9TIYOVve Laxu1qB8GsepQOj5bZUCvLxGKc8YE2JK3mirnw89p1e6c1JaHCEaDA== =gmG3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sun Aug 10 23:08:07 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 16:08:07 -0500 Subject: public key newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> Message-ID: <489F58B7.1050708@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote: | I assume, FAEBD5FC is very well known and in a lot of keyrings. Can | somebody check please? 32370053 seconds is 374,6533912037 days, 9 more | than a year... | | Greetings | | Ludwig It wasn't originally on my keyring, but I got a copy from pool.sks-keyservers.net, and it says it was created March 10, 2000. The name associated is Phillip R. Zimmerman (email prz at pgp.com), and the fingerprint is 783B 3627 1976 8F4D 8633 2E06 19B0 FF60 FAEB D5FC (just to make sure we are talking about the same key). - -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJIn1i3AAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/L4QkIAMg7sFfKTQi0phJIbENKv+K3 rVvU1dURt/5GKK2BjJjMur/cxrNDBNIFO8q7xIerB1PMql86ZDMX/J7kS7UCwt7f ytYlLtCIhZ1473f4vXrwUuHVwM1NN4WZNxmGn2CGdEtQyy+MIS+WGP+GHQGzzTdv e6QLctAPSYVlSKPdelGibHuwFl7vEf0kilcMEZTs/b0638JQo6nSZUR6WW9YAbgk ut5RSYRn9HC28nQkcAy90bQSXhenlgg5aRLc9zVLv+mX3HBkttxOj2hhgJHaK1H+ FOnDWQb/sK1Cn52PG2oQBDQhu8zW4hHYLnWHmbCQj7H+4XmH8D/EUOl7g6tSvzg= =GJkh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shavital at mac.com Sun Aug 10 23:04:23 2008 From: shavital at mac.com (Charly Avital) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:04:23 -0400 Subject: public key newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> Message-ID: <489F57D7.1020302@mac.com> Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote the following on 8/10/08 1:27 PM: > Ludwig H?gelsch?fer wrote on 09.08.2008 13:14 Uhr: >> Hello, > >> the last weeks, when importing public keys I sometimes get: > >> "?ffentlicher Schl?ssel %s ist %lu Sekunden j?nger als die Unterschrift" > >> in english: > >> "public key %s is %lu second newer than the signature" > >> The indicated time interval is very large. What's running wrong? I tried >> googling, but found nothing useful. I'm using gpg 1.4.9 on Mac OS X. > > When a routinely trust-db check took place today, I got the message: > > ?ffentlicher Schl?ssel FAEBD5FC ist 32370053 Sekunden j?nger als die > Unterschrift > > I assume, FAEBD5FC is very well known and in a lot of keyrings. Can > somebody check please? 32370053 seconds is 374,6533912037 days, 9 more > than a year... > This is what I get: $ gpg --recv-key FAEBD5FC gpg: requesting key FAEBD5FC from hkp server keyserver.kjsl.com gpg: key FAEBD5FC: public key "Philip R. Zimmermann " imported gpg: key FAEBD5FC: public key "Philip R. Zimmermann " imported gpg: public key FAEBD5FC is 37319134 seconds newer than the signature gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model gpg: depth: 0 valid: 30 signed: 123 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 30u gpg: depth: 1 valid: 123 signed: 61 trust: 3-, 3q, 0n, 36m, 81f, 0u gpg: depth: 2 valid: 45 signed: 96 trust: 1-, 1q, 2n, 25m, 16f, 0u gpg: depth: 3 valid: 6 signed: 20 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 4m, 2f, 0u gpg: depth: 4 valid: 3 signed: 4 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 1m, 2f, 0u gpg: next trustdb check due at 2008-08-17 gpg: Total number processed: 2 gpg: imported: 2 Now with a different keyserver: $ gpg --recv-key FAEBD5FC gpg: requesting key FAEBD5FC from hkp server subkeys.pgp.net gpg: key FAEBD5FC: "Philip R. Zimmermann " not changed gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for key signature packet of class 10 gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for key signature packet of class 10 gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for signature gpg: Total number processed: 2 gpg: unchanged: 1 Now another keyserver: $ gpg --recv-key FAEBD5FC gpg: requesting key FAEBD5FC from hkp server pgp.uni-mainz.de gpg: key FAEBD5FC: "Philip R. Zimmermann " not changed gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for key signature packet of class 10 gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for key signature packet of class 10 gpg: key FAEBD5FC: no user ID for signature gpg: Total number processed: 2 gpg: unchanged: 1 gpg --edit-key FAEBD5FC gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.9; Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. pub 1024D/FAEBD5FC created: 1998-06-13 expires: never usage: SCA trust: undefined validity: unknown sub 2048g/5481FA99 created: 2000-03-11 expires: never usage: E [ unknown] (1). Philip R. Zimmermann Command> check uid Philip R. Zimmermann sig! X 61D7341D 2003-09-07 Dave J. (Scoop0901) sig! FAEBD5FC 2000-03-11 [self-signature] At every trustdb check, that key FAEBD5FC comes up with 'gpg: public key FAEBD5FC is 37319134 seconds newer than the signature' Why?: gpg: Total number processed: 2 gpg: unchanged: 1 Shouldn't it be: .....Total number processed: 1 (and not 2)? "unchanged: 1" - At every download from a key server, *two* keys are processed, and one of them has something new? The primary key was created on 1998-06-13 never expires. The encryption subkey was created 2000-03-11 never expires, and there is a self signature dated 2000-03-11. Could that be a signature for the modification of the subkey's expiration date? And ...no user ID for signature... ? I have no answers, only questions. Charly From apple at royds.net Mon Aug 11 00:16:18 2008 From: apple at royds.net (Bill Royds) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:16:18 -0400 Subject: public key newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489F57D7.1020302@mac.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489F2518.9080601@hammernoch.net> <489F57D7.1020302@mac.com> Message-ID: On 10-Aug-08, at 17:04 , Charly Avital wrote: > Command> check > uid Philip R. Zimmermann > sig! X 61D7341D 2003-09-07 Dave J. (Scoop0901) > > sig! FAEBD5FC 2000-03-11 [self-signature] > > > > At every trustdb check, that key FAEBD5FC comes up with > 'gpg: public key FAEBD5FC is 37319134 seconds newer than the > signature' > > Why?: > gpg: Total number processed: 2 > gpg: unchanged: 1 > > > Shouldn't it be: .....Total number processed: 1 (and not 2)? > > "unchanged: 1" - At every download from a key server, *two* keys are > processed, and one of them has something new? > > The primary key was created on 1998-06-13 never expires. > The encryption subkey was created 2000-03-11 never expires, and > there is > a self signature dated 2000-03-11. Could that be a signature for the > modification of the subkey's expiration date? > > And ...no user ID for signature... ? > > I have no answers, only questions. > > Charly Phil Zimmerman is the developer of PGP so his key was the very first one issued. I wonder if there is a rollover problem with one of the fields in the key? From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Mon Aug 11 04:46:00 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:46:00 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 8 Aug 2008, Alexander W. Janssen wrote: . . . > Werner Koch wrote: >> Further, >> entering the passphrase is subject to side channel atatcks like should >> surfing or recording the sound of the keyboard. > > Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of > the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? . . . That's the idea as stated in reports I have read. Keep in mind that waveform (sound or light) analysis is *very* advanced, and not grossly expensive, these days. I don't recall at this time whether a baseline of each key's sound has also to be recorded as known sound signature, but I'd guess some tactic(s) could be devised soon enough to work around that. Sound analysis reportedly can also be used to identify individual keyboard users, by rate and intensity patterns of typing. And, alternatively, I've read rate of succession of keystrokes can be a clue to how close they are to each other on the keyboard (or maybe at least how sequentially accessible they are given some user's hand size and skill). IIRC, this was said to be usable to simplify trying to read an encrypted stream assumed to consist of keystrokes, by considering the pace of character succession. So two-fingered simpleton typing, or carpal tunnel syndrome typing, may be a protection :-) . And I guess, type at least your passwords, etc, in a way strange for you and for your keyboard. From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 04:55:11 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:55:11 -0500 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> Message-ID: <489FAA0F.3010701@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 reynt0 wrote: | So two-fingered simpleton typing, or carpal tunnel syndrome | typing, may be a protection :-) . And I guess, type at | least your passwords, etc, in a way strange for you and for | your keyboard. I've gotten into the habit of typing my passwords very quickly with very little finger movement in order to make it difficult for anyone looking over my shoulder to figure them out. - -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJIn6oPAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LQ60H/26U/QHt/kjpd31OFvmKcBmV oIbIEJDFnDNyLoknUfg+crmCNkgRdI47tdhvsMs/qrBSgFQtSh+qpIbNyi0BOm6n WkRw05SDCYkOljg7yebQKT6T6dBqK5o4yYNT6AepWJq4tKtKjaCOFV1xsr5+KFjG 02Xnsr6r0ujbmOChlNw1Ppwff3J/sr4rtGXyhidGWIwHUrzkjwVKYDgW07qMjEt5 Sp15eOfqEbEj05BwTVmi6BsQMvAyyxFQuqaORq8CIpisfAUEbAqt07IpDFTNtWtc sqrhjreUOw4vzlmWDdfiJXZAHVi2kJhY7tlEgKbKnoRvFWFjAxIVwV4JlovFNUo= =2cIY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 05:00:50 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 22:00:50 -0500 Subject: I may have the wrong secret key... Message-ID: <489FAB62.90106@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 I've moved between systems, and I may have an old secret key. Would someone please verify that A) the signature is indeed from 0xF88E034060A78FCB (it seems to be, but I want to be sure), and that I can decrypt messages encrypted to that key (i.e. send me an email encrypted to that key). Thanks. - -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJIn6tiAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LAOMH/1sY5Vg34bTtbdY/e1RloQKW WMHmll/jTByLiTuFMfJnI44n+H8ABCZEkof9RNFTNaUC400rPETmCfiHcYi+Fb8p qGOtmDZzsqcxlAupo2OCTxfFK676RyqcMJNmOEcIij84S2+aE6Cd+991sMjGog/m y6uFFtWHOqPhXU0MU4EaS+rSKze8Xa9rqort7pqcYE/Bef+U/1T0vPskYSbrN/6i uXmuJzTmWNABfYtEHDv5TW+Q6txdmm/Z0zIN8eU6jIaVG57mmzFbQjxlhosGcvtk 3APleMkgou4kmixrg4j8dg1P0/ky6TtBHG7CE6wKAerHQpsSX3EoHNOc/fu4zo8= =rt7R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 05:05:09 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 23:05:09 -0400 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> Message-ID: <489FAC65.7000601@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 reynt0 escribi?: >> Don't tell me there are actually real attacks by recording the sound of >> the keyboard...?! What does that mean, every key clicks differently? ... > So two-fingered simpleton typing, or carpal tunnel syndrome > typing, may be a protection :-) . And I guess, type at > least your passwords, etc, in a way strange for you and for > your keyboard. Maybe a non-qwerty keyboard? Anyway... no home user should be worried about these kinds of attacks... Remember there is no way to make something 100% secure, but if the cost to make a successful attack is greater then the benefits from the attack... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIn6xlAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAxi0H/2FYxBJamcy04C4Gy62APbj+ y4SWgoSzaQW16viE8mTiSLM3mfNPligUwVILUurOswojXOTTZxe1B5jNQljAEuqx GGWWzJ+34HX3FJ1CNwztFjD7gnjtm8YAelTWl0r9CP0wdDQR714kFLRinGeDTp0L J93pdQZdmXuYd2LCozFwlGuRDLZ4GODrQHliJO3tRduaihPBRhVOcKLJLYl1i4Sb 919HL8wae12ogLm72jsYTJSmtAh5VldvImu7jrfHi1/edVYGxkPIO5ShjQ/ZS0yM qcpa2jZ6BKvJYQsJpAFmnw0ibJ+idp0rlQkbrSZwupj2ihJVBt2GBlczERibhjw= =hGb4 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 10:28:12 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 04:28:12 -0400 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> Message-ID: <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Ludwig H?gelsch?fer escribi?: > Hello, > > the last weeks, when importing public keys I sometimes get: > > "?ffentlicher Schl?ssel %s ist %lu Sekunden j?nger als die Unterschrift" > > in english: > > "public key %s is %lu second newer than the signature" Look at this (message got from GPGshell when I was checking postgreSQL installer) gpg: Firmado el 06/09/08 06:47:47 gpg: usando DSA clave 0x1A19643B gpg: solicitando clave 0x1A19643B de hkp servidor pool.sks-keyservers.net gpg: clave 0x1A19643B: clave p?blica "Dave Page " importada gpg: la clave p?blica 0xFAEBD5FC es 37319134 segundos m?s nueva que la firma Which means: The signature is from 06/09/08 06:47:47 ... The public key is 37319134 seconds newer than the signature. But when I checked the key info, it was created on 12-06-2003, so there is no way the key can be newer than the signature. Then I began to think... what does 06/09/08 mean? Here (at Chile), that would mean September 6, 2008. But on USA, that means June 09, 2008. Clearly, since we are at August 11, 2008, the time format in the output message is mm/dd/yy. But my windows is using dd/mm/yyyy, so, maybe at some point, something (gpg, or gpgshell, or maybe the function that gets the current date) is taking mm/dd/yy as if it was dd/mm/yy, causing the whole date calculation function to go crazy... That is only my guess... but maybe... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIn/gbAAoJEMV4f6PvczxATT0H/0ohndV5+vDssl+8c1+CWke8 DbJckj1Qh3Vlsdm584j/aJzAhnN5wsQ56xroKqT58ipLG7aK/t5DjTnftVn9jFYT AxJT400EMn+Zl1/0JZJ1DB5M5NxFPIIUGyqMa7bEw5VXvmEFrTPx9vnbIfVEknHk oSNJue9yEyMJQODJBUHsUG7HU0+/DyVj+5kZfpY/PK5+B2MgRAOFPN8p/fU2+Gv+ cMfQkREJRkDZFcuvSXN8UeXNe8DFXKBnOS+vq0HUENViqtioVL5r021rZRGK+Odu AIQazGsBULS2KHGWuS3Yv2/ZNuRTTlviH8FTJqlzcrWFaV476GAUPad450a525Y= =HfVn -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From allen.schultz at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 10:53:38 2008 From: allen.schultz at gmail.com (Allen Schultz) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:53:38 -0600 Subject: WinPT upload problem Message-ID: <3f34f8420808110153u4499e39at10c0aa7f5e9af4be@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have an issue with signing a key with an exportable key (I got that fix) but I keep getting a message when I try to send the key back to the server with my signature. "http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371: Could not connect to the host". This is from gpg4win download I have from just recent (8/10-8/11). What can I do to fix this without having to copy to clipboard, going to same server's web page and pasting? Allen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0 iD8DBQFIn/39Bii+WJwtK7YRAjWpAKCMQ9Oe9SVoJ715EL8jtNX7xlm6OACfYLMB l94ctYy8At7r+ibcythJoDs= =JRLL -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From allen.schultz at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 11:47:58 2008 From: allen.schultz at gmail.com (Allen Schultz) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 03:47:58 -0600 Subject: Remove a Key From a Key Server? by David Ross Message-ID: <3f34f8420808110247s559dae45h81644718ccece063@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I have a question about David Ross's instructions for revoking old keys that you no longer have access to per instructions on his website ( http://www.rossde.com/PGP/pgp_keyserv.html#noremove ). Do I create a key just for revoking all old keys and have a seperate for a new key? How does this work? Allen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) - WinPT 1.2.0 iD8DBQFIoArEBii+WJwtK7YRAuRqAJ90m75GShyAXneh9My/qkMk4VZcbQCeIgZB 72vjvb2ikOOzdU1KZQLy3Qg= =Ob9h -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 11 12:12:57 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:12:57 +0200 Subject: WinPT upload problem In-Reply-To: <3f34f8420808110153u4499e39at10c0aa7f5e9af4be@mail.gmail.com> (Allen Schultz's message of "Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:53:38 -0600") References: <3f34f8420808110153u4499e39at10c0aa7f5e9af4be@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8763q7lv12.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:53, allen.schultz at gmail.com said: > fix) but I keep getting a message when I try to send the key back to > the server with my signature. "http://wwwkeys.pgp.net:11371: Could not That URL is a collection of keyservers; you use a random one and thus you can't know whether this is a local or a keyserver problem. However that URL collects all kinds of keyservers incluing those which do not work correctly with OpenPGP keys. Just don't use that URL. A suggest to use hkp://keys.gnupg.net which directs only to keyservers known to work. All these keyservers are syncronized, so it does in practice not matter which one you use. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From f.schwind at chili-radiology.com Mon Aug 11 12:43:59 2008 From: f.schwind at chili-radiology.com (Florian Schwind) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:43:59 +0200 Subject: Passphrase caching with gpgme and gpg2 Message-ID: <48A017EF.3040608@chili-radiology.com> Hi. I already send this question to gnupg-devel... which might not be the right place because I didn't get an answer there :-) May be someone from gnupg-users might help me with this issue. With gpg-1.4.9 I used the passphrase_cb() from gpgme to handle passphrases. What is the recommended way to handle the passphrase with gpgme and gpg2? Since I'm building a server application I can not use any form of dialog-box. Thanks Florian From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Mon Aug 11 14:29:03 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:29:03 -0400 Subject: Remove a Key From a Key Server? by David Ross In-Reply-To: <3f34f8420808110247s559dae45h81644718ccece063@mail.gmail.com> References: <3f34f8420808110247s559dae45h81644718ccece063@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 11, 2008, at 5:47 AM, Allen Schultz wrote: > I have a question about David Ross's instructions for revoking old > keys that you no longer have access to per instructions on his website > ( http://www.rossde.com/PGP/pgp_keyserv.html#noremove ). Do I create a > key just for revoking all old keys and have a seperate for a new key? > How does this work? I'm afraid it doesn't. There is no way to revoke any key where you don't have the secret part (if you think about it, the ability to do this would imply a break of OpenPGP signatures). There used to be a popular trick where people would add extra user IDs to a key. Keyservers might show them, but, again, without the secret part, those extra user IDs can't be signed and modern OpenPGP programs will simply ignore them once the key is imported. I'm afraid I can't see any way the method on that web page would work. In fact, it's worse than just doing nothing, as the end result is a valid signature from the active key on the dead key. I think the intent is that you have a signature on the dead key that reads "Do not use", but the steps given on that web page do not actually accomplish this. David From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Mon Aug 11 16:30:16 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 10:30:16 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: <489FAA0F.3010701@gmail.com> References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489C19ED.1050406@gmail.com> <20080808105926.GD28731@bristol.st.com> <873alfr23w.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <489C6271.1040802@fsfe.org> <489FAA0F.3010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Andrew Berg wrote: . . . > I've gotten into the habit of typing my passwords very quickly with very > little finger movement in order to make it difficult for anyone looking > over my shoulder to figure them out. Or anyone sitting to the side of you two seats away, who is doing something with their camera-enabled cellphone, and so on. Maybe what is needed is like a curtain arrangement--you tilt your laptop lid toward you to reduce the view-access angle, then drop down a curtain from the lid edges to block vision of the keyboard, then push a button to retract the curtain -- like a device in a 1960's USA movie :-) . Of course, then it's pretty obvious you are typing something special so that's when the attacker turns on the camera and sound recorder..... From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 11 18:12:49 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:12:49 +0200 Subject: Passphrase caching with gpgme and gpg2 In-Reply-To: <48A017EF.3040608@chili-radiology.com> (Florian Schwind's message of "Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:43:59 +0200") References: <48A017EF.3040608@chili-radiology.com> Message-ID: <87profh6ny.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:43, f.schwind at chili-radiology.com said: > passphrases. What is the recommended way to handle the passphrase with > gpgme and gpg2? Since I'm building a server application I can not use You need to use gpg-preset-passphrase. I recently tested that I found that there is a buglet in gpg which make the preset useless: https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue941 Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From kloecker at kde.org Mon Aug 11 18:21:56 2008 From: kloecker at kde.org (Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?=) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:21:56 +0200 Subject: Some questions In-Reply-To: References: <4a26584e0808051449r566cad15r1c907a48eed66255@mail.gmail.com> <489FAA0F.3010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <200808111822.01481@erwin.ingo-kloecker.de> On Monday 11 August 2008, reynt0 wrote: > On Sun, 10 Aug 2008, Andrew Berg wrote: > . . . > > > I've gotten into the habit of typing my passwords very quickly with > > very little finger movement in order to make it difficult for > > anyone looking over my shoulder to figure them out. > > Or anyone sitting to the side of you two seats away, > who is doing something with their camera-enabled > cellphone, and so on. Maybe what is needed is > like a curtain arrangement--you tilt your laptop > lid toward you to reduce the view-access angle, then > drop down a curtain from the lid edges to block vision > of the keyboard, then push a button to retract the > curtain -- like a device in a 1960's USA movie :-) . You mean like those: http://www.sternlab.org/index.php?project=BodyTechnologyInterfaces :-) > Of course, then it's pretty obvious you are typing > something special so that's when the attacker turns > on the camera and sound recorder..... So you just have to use it all the time. Just as you should encrypt all of your email messages and not just the one message you don't want the government to see. Regards, Ingo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: From f.schwind at chili-radiology.com Mon Aug 11 18:31:12 2008 From: f.schwind at chili-radiology.com (Florian Schwind) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:31:12 +0200 Subject: Passphrase caching with gpgme and gpg2 In-Reply-To: <87profh6ny.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <48A017EF.3040608@chili-radiology.com> <87profh6ny.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48A06950.5070203@chili-radiology.com> Werner Koch wrote: > On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 12:43, f.schwind at chili-radiology.com said: > >> passphrases. What is the recommended way to handle the passphrase with >> gpgme and gpg2? Since I'm building a server application I can not use > > You need to use gpg-preset-passphrase. > > I recently tested that I found that there is a buglet in gpg which make > the preset useless: > > https://bugs.g10code.com/gnupg/issue941 Is there a timeframe when this will be fixed? And I still don't see how to uses the preset-passphrase with gpgme? Thanks Florian > Salam-Shalom, > > Werner > From wk at gnupg.org Mon Aug 11 19:55:09 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:55:09 +0200 Subject: Passphrase caching with gpgme and gpg2 In-Reply-To: <48A06950.5070203@chili-radiology.com> (Florian Schwind's message of "Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:31:12 +0200") References: <48A017EF.3040608@chili-radiology.com> <87profh6ny.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48A06950.5070203@chili-radiology.com> Message-ID: <87ej4v5tdu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:31, f.schwind at chili-radiology.com said: > Is there a timeframe when this will be fixed? And I still don't see We have no need to fix that problem. Thus it takes until all higher priority jobs are finished. > how to uses the preset-passphrase with gpgme? You can't. In most cases gpg-preset-passphrase is hack to work around policies which require a passphrase at places where a passphrase does not secure anything (because that passphrae ends up in a file somewhere). Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From decouk at gmail.com Mon Aug 11 20:59:55 2008 From: decouk at gmail.com (Andre Amorim) Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 19:59:55 +0100 Subject: etoken aladdin howto Message-ID: Hi all, http://www.etokenonlinux.org/et/HowTos/eToken_and_GPG [s] -- Andre Amorim GnuPG KEY: 2048R/3E10FF47 Download: http://pgp.zdv.uni-mainz.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x7C3B77763E10FF47 From John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org Tue Aug 12 07:03:55 2008 From: John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org (John Clizbe) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 00:03:55 -0500 Subject: WinPT upload problem In-Reply-To: <8763q7lv12.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <3f34f8420808110153u4499e39at10c0aa7f5e9af4be@mail.gmail.com> <8763q7lv12.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48A119BB.3090707@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Werner Koch wrote: > A suggest to use hkp://keys.gnupg.net which directs only to keyservers > known to work. All these keyservers are syncronized, so it does in > practice not matter which one you use. Or hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net which is updated twice per day to only include online and synchronized keyservers. Disclaimer: I operate a SKS keyserver which is often included in the pool. -- John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?" A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 654 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From Michael.Lorenz at persis.de Tue Aug 12 11:16:52 2008 From: Michael.Lorenz at persis.de (Lorenz, Michael) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:16:52 +0200 Subject: transfer private key data between applications Message-ID: Hello GNU-PG users, I have a question regarding the export of a private key. I want to transfer the key-pair of a GPG installation to a Java program (using for example the GNU-Crypto library). Since there is a very large amount of encrypted records I want to avoid to create a big convert-process that decrypts with GPG and encrypts again with Java. As GNU-Crypto supports "ElGamal" I thought it would be possible to export the private key as bytes and use this information in Java to decrypt the data. But I have difficulties doing this. I exported the private key with "gpg -o sec_key.out -a --export-secret-keys ..." Using "http://www.pgpdump.net/" I get the following content. What I don't understand is how can I get the "x" parameter of the "ElGamal" key which is needed for the private key? PGPdump only says "Encrypted ElGamal x" but not the bytes. Is the problem that PGPdump can't do this task? Is there another (better) tool? --- Old: Secret Key Packet(tag 5)(481 bytes) Ver 4 - new Public key creation time - Mon Jun 16 14:58:56 CEST 2008 Pub alg - DSA Digital Signature Algorithm(pub 17) DSA p(1024 bits) - ad d2 [...] DSA q(160 bits) - c5 f9 [...] DSA g(1022 bits) - 26 27 [...] DSA y(1022 bits) - 29 bd [...] Sym alg - CAST5(sym 3) Iterated and salted string-to-key(s2k 3): Hash alg - SHA1(hash 2) Salt - a2 fe [...] Count - 65536(coded count 96) IV - 51 d2 [...] Encrypted DSA x Encrypted SHA1 hash Old: User ID Packet(tag 13)(28 bytes) User ID - [...] Old: Signature Packet(tag 2)(94 bytes) Ver 4 - new Sig type - Positive certification of a User ID and Public Key packet(0x13). Pub alg - DSA Digital Signature Algorithm(pub 17) Hash alg - SHA1(hash 2) Hashed Sub: signature creation time(sub 2)(4 bytes) Time - Mon Jun 16 14:58:56 CEST 2008 Hashed Sub: key flags(sub 27)(1 bytes) Flag - This key may be used to certify other keys Flag - This key may be used to sign data Hashed Sub: preferred symmetric algorithms(sub 11)(5 bytes) Sym alg - AES with 256-bit key(sym 9) Sym alg - AES with 192-bit key(sym 8) Sym alg - AES with 128-bit key(sym 7) Sym alg - CAST5(sym 3) Sym alg - Triple-DES(sym 2) Hashed Sub: preferred hash algorithms(sub 21)(2 bytes) Hash alg - SHA1(hash 2) Hash alg - RIPEMD160(hash 3) Hashed Sub: preferred compression algorithms(sub 22)(2 bytes) Comp alg - ZLIB (comp 2) Comp alg - ZIP (comp 1) Hashed Sub: features(sub 30)(1 bytes) Flag - Modification detection (packets 18 and 19) Hashed Sub: key server preferences(sub 23)(1 bytes) Flag - No-modify Sub: issuer key ID(sub 16)(8 bytes) Key ID - 0xE4... Hash left 2 bytes - 3d 12 DSA r(159 bits) - 6f 5d [...] DSA s(159 bits) - 6b 83 [...] -> hash(DSA q bits) Old: Secret Subkey Packet(tag 7)(611 bytes) Ver 4 - new Public key creation time - Mon Jun 16 14:59:01 CEST 2008 Pub alg - ElGamal Encrypt-Only(pub 16) ElGamal p(2048 bits) - c2 a6 [...] ElGamal g(3 bits) - 07 ElGamal y(2046 bits) - 24 34 [...] Sym alg - CAST5(sym 3) Iterated and salted string-to-key(s2k 3): Hash alg - SHA1(hash 2) Salt - a2 fe [...] Count - 65536(coded count 96) IV - d2 1f [...] Encrypted ElGamal x Encrypted SHA1 hash Old: Signature Packet(tag 2)(73 bytes) Ver 4 - new Sig type - Subkey Binding Signature(0x18). Pub alg - DSA Digital Signature Algorithm(pub 17) Hash alg - SHA1(hash 2) Hashed Sub: signature creation time(sub 2)(4 bytes) Time - Mon Jun 16 14:59:01 CEST 2008 Hashed Sub: key flags(sub 27)(1 bytes) Flag - This key may be used to encrypt communications Flag - This key may be used to encrypt storage Sub: issuer key ID(sub 16)(8 bytes) Key ID - 0xE4... Hash left 2 bytes - 4b c1 DSA r(159 bits) - 70 d0 [...] DSA s(157 bits) - 1a 52 [...] -> hash(DSA q bits) --- I would be very happy if someone can help. Thanks in advance ... Sincerely, Michael Lorenz. From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Tue Aug 12 16:18:41 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:18:41 -0400 Subject: transfer private key data between applications In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4639A040-B954-461E-9FB2-6C723B16C2DB@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Lorenz, Michael wrote: > Hello GNU-PG users, > > I have a question regarding the export of a private key. > > I want to transfer the key-pair of a GPG installation to a Java > program (using for example the GNU-Crypto library). Since there is a > very large amount of encrypted records I want to avoid to create a > big convert-process that decrypts with GPG and encrypts again with > Java. > > As GNU-Crypto supports "ElGamal" I thought it would be possible to > export the private key as bytes and use this information in Java to > decrypt the data. But I have difficulties doing this. You could probably work through this and get it to work, but it's not going to be easy. For one, OpenPGP uses a somewhat strange cipher mode (a variant on CFB). You'd also have to deal with the OpenPGP encoding on the packets. Rather than do all that, take a look at http://www.bouncycastle.org/ They have a Java library that can do OpenPGP directly. David From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 01:26:13 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:26:13 -0500 Subject: I may have the wrong secret key... Message-ID: <48A21C15.3000303@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 I have the right key. Thanks to everyone who confirmed it for me. I would've sent myself one, but GMail thinks it's helpful when it takes emails with my address in the From: field out of my inbox. - -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBAwAGBQJIohwVAAoJEPiOA0Bgp4/LHzUH/1LJeYTn/afRI8/Dqp1VEvF1 saCqyRBc0y3Q0SxhVhc4cBBI7WU8akYR1SO9lToskSoJXmAareZNeQl56k+z5BbQ MJ9JcmrgcbawMd3OuMPjLPd5NumOC5WFSXbX2kHoX7v45K3pXPCIdYm9oOuy35BV iE/Q1M5mGU4lv5YILyjwGeRsTv3/E+yUvxQRovNZq6N03nS9bC1JouYwKQ/yWmVc eFiCW2jNme88w5q2u5l2FVbL4ZmrIQfp8TBrKqYaylPbpkghMF3+M8Xo/Bb1Yoxq 8wlqiS/oE4nWjR0dXd2O9eg13/7MfGql7azXK3aTIaE9DEV/paAYfObiB4ogkZs= =xd9J -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 01:43:49 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 18:43:49 -0500 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> Faramir wrote: > Then I began to think... what does 06/09/08 mean? Here (at Chile), that > would mean September 6, 2008. But on USA, that means June 09, 2008. > Clearly, since we are at August 11, 2008, the time format in the output > message is mm/dd/yy. But my windows is using dd/mm/yyyy, so, maybe at > some point, something (gpg, or gpgshell, or maybe the function that gets > the current date) is taking mm/dd/yy as if it was dd/mm/yy, causing the > whole date calculation function to go crazy... Time for computers is generally just the number of seconds since January 1, 1970 at 12:00:00 UTC if I'm not mistaken. Date formats are derived from that and displayed according to the user's preference. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 13 05:16:19 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:16:19 -0500 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> Andrew Berg wrote: > Time for computers is generally just the number of seconds since January > 1, 1970 at 12:00:00 UTC if I'm not mistaken. Time for UNIX systems is generally this way. Win32 and MacOS (pre-OS X) have their own ways of storing time. It is ridiculously hard to come up with a robust time and date standard. This is why there are so many different, conflicting implementations out there. Note that in some instances, GnuPG will use an ISO date format as opposed to seconds-since-Epoch. From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 05:31:08 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:31:08 -0500 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > It is ridiculously hard to come up with a robust time and date standard. Why is that? > Note that in some instances, GnuPG will use an ISO date format as > opposed to seconds-since-Epoch. Is this for non-Unix-like systems or is it something completely different? -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 | Enigmail 0.95.6 From faramir.cl at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 06:39:41 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 00:39:41 -0400 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A2658D.3010209@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Andrew Berg escribi?: > Faramir wrote: >> Then I began to think... what does 06/09/08 mean? Here (at Chile), that >> would mean September 6, 2008. But on USA, that means June 09, 2008. >> Clearly, since we are at August 11, 2008, the time format in the output >> message is mm/dd/yy. But my windows is using dd/mm/yyyy, so, maybe at >> some point, something (gpg, or gpgshell, or maybe the function that gets >> the current date) is taking mm/dd/yy as if it was dd/mm/yy, causing the >> whole date calculation function to go crazy... > > > Time for computers is generally just the number of seconds since January > 1, 1970 at 12:00:00 UTC if I'm not mistaken. Date formats are derived > from that and displayed according to the user's preference. Yes, I know computers do that, but sometimes, they don't do it... ms-excel usually likes to give me problems with that... But that was just an idea about what could be giving problems, and probably is a wrong idea. Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIomWNAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAZzUH/ApqJQEVdjx7UjWWFZY9M81E VoFve/byD86AP1uXHhTtQlvA2L8r13gOcuLS8Ts69tCYELFPn51TikDZQrLYUDZP DaHzB22mIT10RVohmPsQXUZSYrppyFFeRhUJrROxokComx0T5HoYE34mk4zAJkMD hSOcHRlYVim43m7+MDWo5qMFGipg/NzMCkqd8x3JYm03WUaeJQZzvjSuB+7l/jtu mFCbUfqvsStUXdCd4x7fGEBa0DAgjXzUji8djZjNAMhXAIpt5F+MqTmHm9B6343o VacM9AWJ9sGbbrDxp0Rki4BY0KeW773LON0IcDkEGGRrHZCBMUviS13FAMU9Hfk= =qEAT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Wed Aug 13 07:28:44 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 01:28:44 -0400 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A2710C.20802@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Andrew Berg escribi?: > Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> It is ridiculously hard to come up with a robust time and date standard. > Why is that? Well... just an example: some time ago, the Open Document Format standard was created. OpenOffice uses it, and it is an ISO standard. But Microsoft, instead of start using it, designed its own "Open Office XML" and managed to make it an ISO standard too. So if you want to make a text editor, you must chose which one you will use... or you can use your own format... or you can make it compatible with both formats (but converting files from one format to the other one can be very difficult). I figure you can find examples of the same problem with anything related to computers. By the way, China uses its own calendar, and I am not talking about computers... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIonC7AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAxRgH/370EZ6++HBvsPnpK8AsH1Mh ImFy3SqWkeEb3vZTzjKNMs8lYyzY41Brp/QaW/TG4m4S6P7+rbLQnR66PyWV4t5b cRw7Ceq1AckH672x9IG7hYJANC/nWy+gDVN9WJNQ+n8SfNsMgFyrt8n3Hq6I0GLE r+zuo0GxFY3MTbuaq2P2JXWrqhXipKDJSqsKsDBhyzH2Djdvi5CC7kPMAWWa4Y+Y nknGez1X3QaWqITYIfiZmwQ+nPpSqK4Vn1mHuBkcvJnyM6AU/uJmBtZjMl3mFTyX ym8QzYP506JDAqWDA8UnJRR9fZk4IyqEsgGszJJ1eJEwZOWt2pboyt1/KeECglE= =AVKm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wk at gnupg.org Wed Aug 13 08:24:20 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:24:20 +0200 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> (Andrew Berg's message of "Tue, 12 Aug 2008 22:31:08 -0500") References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8763q5ph4b.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:31, bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com said: >> Note that in some instances, GnuPG will use an ISO date format as >> opposed to seconds-since-Epoch. > Is this for non-Unix-like systems or is it something completely different? Well we use it for all parts of GnuPG-2 except for gpg. The reason for this are problems with time_t. On a 32 bit system time_t is usually also 32 bit and far worse it is a signed integer. That means that in January 2038 time_t will overflow and almost all applications will stop working because virtually no application (or better OS) can cope with the then negative value. According to ISO C, there is no need for time_t being signed but most OS implement it this way, probably to make error handling easier (some functions return (time_t)(-1) to indicate an error). OpenPGP also uses such an Epoch time but as an unsigned 32 bit value, thus it will last until 2106 (expire time even longer because it is expressed as seconds since key creation). gpg should cope correctly with dates beyond 2038 but it can't display them on most systems due to lack of support in the OS. The easiest way to solve the problems would be to change time_t on 32 bit systems to a 64 bit type. On GNU/Linux this could even be done without breaking old applications but the maintainer of glibc is not interested in such a change because he considers time_t the wrong type to track calendar dates. Given that already today some X.509 certificates have a expiration date after 2038 (yes, that is a stupid understanding of security) we could not easily use time_t. To have a general solution, we tried to implement a new time API (see Markus Kuhn's website for details). The problem with that is that this implementation should be portable to all systems. That turned out to be a major problem: Too many functions in libc make use of time_t and they are all interweaved (think only of strftime and printf) and thus it is really hard to replace them. We canceled that project and instead use a simple approach for gpgsm: The type we use for calendar time is typedef char gnupg_isotime_t[16]; which takes an ISO string like "20080813T081500". There are a few supporting functions because such a type can't be handled as easy as a scalar value. It turned out that this type is pretty easy to use and fulfills all requirements in certificate processing. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 13 09:25:27 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 02:25:27 -0500 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A2710C.20802@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> <48A25203.1050306@sixdemonbag.org> <48A2557C.4090103@gmail.com> <48A2710C.20802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A28C67.7060105@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > Well... just an example: some time ago, the Open Document Format The ODF-OOXML debate really has very little to do with date and time standards. If there was an obviously correct way of doing things, both document formats would support it. The problem tends to be this: how do you define "time", and how ought it be incremented? If you ask a person in the street how long a year is, they'll say 365 days. If they're bright, they'll say 365 and a quarter. But the reality is leap years only apply in years evenly divisible by four and _not_ divisible by 25, with the exception of years evenly divisible by 400. (No, I'm not kidding. This is why 2000 was a leap year, but 1900 wasn't.) And then we get into the question of leap seconds. Where should they be placed? How should they be accounted for? That's not even addressing questions like how to make a calendar that caters to our Gregorian calendar, but can also handle the Jewish and Islamic calendars, which are defined not in terms of absolute units of time but in terms of astronomical events. E.g., in the Gregorian calendar it's pretty easy to tell whether a date falls on the weekend. In the Jewish calendar, the Sabbath begins at sundown on what the Gregorian calendar would call Friday and continues until the appearance of three stars in the sky on Saturday night (!). Hence, dates in the Jewish calendar depend not only on your latitude and season, but also on local weather conditions and light pollution. (Anyone who says "... well, yeah, but that's an obviously crazy calendar standard, so we shouldn't care about it" will be roundly thwacked. Given how crazy the Gregorian calendar has occasionally been, including downright _missing a couple of weeks_ once, the Gregorian calendar does not exactly have much room to criticize.) ===== On top of that, there are technical issues. If you're just tracking seconds since an arbitrary point in time, how do you increment this clock to adjust for leap seconds? Do you actually increment the clock, or do you make a note somewhere "the actual time is now offset by a leap second; the amount of time since Epoch hasn't really changed, though"? What range of values can the since-Epoch value hold? Most UNIXes hold it as a 32-bit signed integer, meaning January 1 2038 we're going to see a lot of legacy applications crash. We could switch it to a 64-bit value, but this is kind of contentious for various reasons (mostly, IMO, personal prejudice masquerading as technical objections). What about applications that need to keep rigorous track of time? For instance, the UNIX seconds-since-Epoch date/time format is pretty poorly suited for our modern environment, where GPS satellites need nanosecond accuracy, and relativistic effects have to be considered for essentially all satellite communications. ===== Seconds since Epoch is just a bad date/time format, there's no two ways about it. But then again, _all_ the date/time formats are bad. What seconds-since-Epoch has going for it is that it's dead simple and everyone understands it. Those are two of its strengths, and for that reason it's not going away anytime soon. ... And on this note, I'm going to stop rambling on this increasingly off-topic subject. Hopefully this is a good overview of why programmers hate all the date/time formats out there, and just how tough it is to do it right. :) From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Aug 13 11:54:18 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:54:18 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Importing old PGP key Message-ID: I have the same problem as was answered by David Shaw in 2004: http://osdir.com/ml/gnu.gnupg.users/2004-06/msg00022.html (Converting a veeeery old PGP key (2.6.3ia) to GnuPG.) However the method he suggested does not work for me: $ gpg --s2k-cipher-algo cast5 --edit-key 0x5D144299 gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.6; Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. Secret key is available. pub 512R/5D144299 created: 1999-04-12 expires: never usage: SCEA trust: unknown validity: unknown [ unknown] (1). hun.admin.news Command> passwd Key is protected. gpg: protection algorithm 1 (IDEA) is not supported gpg: the IDEA cipher plugin is not present gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq/why-not-idea.html for more information Can't edit this key: unknown cipher algorithm Command> What should I do? Gabor From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 13 12:21:10 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 05:21:10 -0500 Subject: Importing old PGP key In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A2B596.6050207@sixdemonbag.org> Kiss Gabor (Bitman) wrote: > What should I do? I'd start by asking whether you really need that key. 512-bit RSA is nowhere near modern standards of sufficiency; it is quite likely that in just a few years such keys will be able to be broken by motivated high school students. RSA-512 is grossly inadequate for essentially any serious cryptographic purpose. If you absolutely _must_ have this key in GnuPG, well, we can help you do it. But first ask yourself whether you should be migrating to 2kbit keys. If so, then now is the ideal time to do it. From mwood at IUPUI.Edu Wed Aug 13 15:39:06 2008 From: mwood at IUPUI.Edu (Mark H. Wood) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 09:39:06 -0400 Subject: public newer than the signature In-Reply-To: <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> References: <489D7C13.8000701@hammernoch.net> <489FF81C.6060805@gmail.com> <48A22035.7060509@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080813133906.GB10152@IUPUI.Edu> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 06:43:49PM -0500, Andrew Berg wrote: > Time for computers is generally just the number of seconds since January 1, > 1970 at 12:00:00 UTC if I'm not mistaken. Date formats are derived from that > and displayed according to the user's preference. Would that it were that simple. The epoch (time 0) means different times in different OSes. Unix uses the above, Microsoft products use another, VMS system time is the quadword number of nanoseconds since some time on some date in (IIRC) November, 1858 (associated with some astronomical catalog), etc. SQL has its own ideas about how to measure time regardless what your OS believes. Even on the same OS you may find different sets of functions that work with different representations and may even use different epochs. It's a valid point that how the machine counts time and how various programs represent time as text are two different matters, and that typically the OS presents time in a form that makes arithmetic easy and the userspace program is responsible for making it comprehensible to humans. Time is a mess, dates doubly so. That's why I usually write something like either 13-Aug-2008 or 20080813T093730 even if it does make people stop and think. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood at IUPUI.Edu Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he means the exact opposite. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Michael.Lorenz at persis.de Wed Aug 13 16:06:03 2008 From: Michael.Lorenz at persis.de (Lorenz, Michael) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:06:03 +0200 Subject: AW: transfer private key data between applications In-Reply-To: <4639A040-B954-461E-9FB2-6C723B16C2DB@jabberwocky.com> References: <4639A040-B954-461E-9FB2-6C723B16C2DB@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: Hi David, thanks for your suggestion. I already had an eye on BouncyCastle but thought it could not be that hard to get the key data :) But I will try BC for they can handle the package format of the gpg-files too. Thanks again! Michael -----Urspr?ngliche Nachricht----- Von: David Shaw [mailto:dshaw at jabberwocky.com] Gesendet: Dienstag, 12. August 2008 16:19 An: gnupg-users at gnupg.org Betreff: Re: transfer private key data between applications On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:16 AM, Lorenz, Michael wrote: > Hello GNU-PG users, > > I have a question regarding the export of a private key. > > I want to transfer the key-pair of a GPG installation to a Java > program (using for example the GNU-Crypto library). Since there is a > very large amount of encrypted records I want to avoid to create a > big convert-process that decrypts with GPG and encrypts again with > Java. > > As GNU-Crypto supports "ElGamal" I thought it would be possible to > export the private key as bytes and use this information in Java to > decrypt the data. But I have difficulties doing this. You could probably work through this and get it to work, but it's not going to be easy. For one, OpenPGP uses a somewhat strange cipher mode (a variant on CFB). You'd also have to deal with the OpenPGP encoding on the packets. Rather than do all that, take a look at http://www.bouncycastle.org/ They have a Java library that can do OpenPGP directly. David _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Aug 13 16:09:11 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:09:11 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] Importing old PGP key In-Reply-To: <48A2B596.6050207@sixdemonbag.org> References: <48A2B596.6050207@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I'd start by asking whether you really need that key. 512-bit RSA is > nowhere near modern standards of sufficiency; it is quite likely that in > just a few years such keys will be able to be broken by motivated high > school students. This key is to sign control messages of the hun.* newsgroups. It is quite unlikely that someone wants to spend any time with breaking of it. :-) It is no worth to do it. However administering and distribute a new key may be problematic. I don't know yet how much. > RSA-512 is grossly inadequate for essentially any serious cryptographic > purpose. > > If you absolutely _must_ have this key in GnuPG, well, we can help you > do it. But first ask yourself whether you should be migrating to 2kbit > keys. If so, then now is the ideal time to do it. If this cannot be done by my self in one hour then I figure out what is the cost of changing the key. Thanks for your advices. Gabor -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFIousQd2oiOrtquzgRArG1AKDHANs38lIlvPuqt7Kuvgd4HRsCXQCg0VLL GT/b1bb+YqdpxqVH5nDfrmI= =+2W1 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wk at gnupg.org Wed Aug 13 17:46:21 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:46:21 +0200 Subject: [GnuPG-users] Importing old PGP key In-Reply-To: (Kiss Gabor's message of "Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:09:11 +0200 (CEST)") References: <48A2B596.6050207@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <874p5ohq9e.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 16:09, kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu said: > If this cannot be done by my self in one hour then I figure out > what is the cost of changing the key. Use pgp to set the passphrase to empty, then export the secret key and import it in gpg. If you like add a new passphrase using gpg --edit-key and the passwd. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From vedaal at hush.com Wed Aug 13 18:04:42 2008 From: vedaal at hush.com (vedaal at hush.com) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:04:42 -0400 Subject: Importing old PGP key Message-ID: <20080813160455.7ABC4118035@mailserver5.hushmail.com> >Message: 6 >Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:54:18 +0200 (CEST) >From: "Kiss Gabor (Bitman)" >Subject: Importing old PGP key >I have the same problem as was answered by David Shaw in 2004: >http://osdir.com/ml/gnu.gnupg.users/2004-06/msg00022.html >(Converting a veeeery old PGP key (2.6.3ia) to GnuPG.) > >However the method he suggested does not work for me: > > >$ gpg --s2k-cipher-algo cast5 --edit-key 0x5D144299 >gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.6; Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, >Inc. >This program comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. >This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it >under certain conditions. See the file COPYING for details. > >Secret key is available. > >pub 512R/5D144299 created: 1999-04-12 expires: never >usage: >SCEA > trust: unknown validity: unknown >[ unknown] (1). hun.admin.news > >Command> passwd >Key is protected. >gpg: protection algorithm 1 (IDEA) is not supported >gpg: the IDEA cipher plugin is not present >gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq/why-not-idea.html for >more information >Can't edit this key: unknown cipher algorithm > >Command> > > >What should I do? get the IDEA algorithm ftp://ftp.gnupg.dk/pub/contrib-dk/ideadll.zip unzip it, and save it to any folder (for illustration, let's say it was saved as 'c:\gnupg\idea.dll') add this line to your gpg.conf : load-extension c:\gnupg\idea.dll then follow David's suggestion then consider following Robert's suggestion ;-) (generate a new key, and decrypt whatever files are encrypted to the old key, and re-encrypt them to the new key) n.b. if, for some reason, you still need to communicate with die-hard pgp 2.x users, (relax, i'm one of them ;-) ) then i suggest you generate a 2047 key in pgp 2.x and re-import it to gnupg, and use the option of --pgp2 whenever you need to communicate with a pgp 2.x user) (some 'really early' versions of pgp 2.x, had a max of 2047, not 2048 ;-) ) and current versions of gnupg won't let you generate a v3 key, and even if you have an older version that does, it's not such a simple procedure to generate a pgp 2.x compatible one...) otherwise, just use the 'default' for gnupg key generation vedaal any ads or links below this message are added by hushmail without my endorsement or awareness of the nature of the link -- Save hundreds on getting a Web Design Degree. Click here. http://tagline.hushmail.com/fc/Ioyw6h4fMueeRt35OAiMiGkjJoGEtl2rsF0s2foIDgKh4LdeW5s0NJ/ From ml at mareichelt.de Thu Aug 14 12:02:57 2008 From: ml at mareichelt.de (markus reichelt) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:02:57 +0200 Subject: FYI: Keysigning at FROSCON 2008 in Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (August 23rd) Message-ID: <20080814100257.GA4316@tatooine.rebelbase.local> Hi, for those interested, there's going to be again a keysigning party at FROSCON 2008 in Bonn-Rhein-Sieg (August 23rd): http://ksp.froscon.org/ -- left blank, right bald -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nishant.sonone at gmail.com Thu Aug 14 02:24:28 2008 From: nishant.sonone at gmail.com (nishant sonone) Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:24:28 -0700 Subject: Unable to run gpg command in JAVA Message-ID: <7feedafc0808131724w2a627dc4le40187e61cc5ede3@mail.gmail.com> Hello All, I am porting an existing perl-mason code to java. I need to create certificates for certain inputs. The command used on perl-mason was open(COMMAND, "echo $text | gpg --homedir $ENV{HOME}/.gnupg -s -u \"The Certificate Key\" |"); my $enc = join('',); my $encCert = encode_base64($encrypted); When i tried to use the dame command in java, its not able to recognize the input to '-u' option. I think java is not able to interpret the spaces between the words of input string \"The Certificate Key\". Can anyone help me with this? -- Thanks & Regards, Nishant Sonone Graduate Student (MS) University of Southern California http://www.usc.edu/ Los Angeles, California, USA "Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning ! ! !" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steve at srevilak.net Fri Aug 15 03:42:01 2008 From: steve at srevilak.net (Steve Revilak) Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:42:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Unable to run gpg command in JAVA In-Reply-To: <7feedafc0808131724w2a627dc4le40187e61cc5ede3@mail.gmail.com> References: <7feedafc0808131724w2a627dc4le40187e61cc5ede3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > From: nishant sonone > Subject: Unable to run gpg command in JAVA > I am porting an existing perl-mason code to java. > I need to create certificates for certain inputs. > The command used on perl-mason was > > open(COMMAND, "echo $text | gpg --homedir $ENV{HOME}/.gnupg -s -u \"The > Certificate Key\" |"); > my $enc = join('',); > my $encCert = encode_base64($encrypted); > > When i tried to use the dame command in java, its not able to recognize the > input to '-u' option. > I think java is not able to interpret the spaces between the words of input > string \"The Certificate Key\". The perl seems reasonable, but what does your java code look like? :) If you gave the entire command line as a single string, then you're at the mercy of java's tokenization of the command line. For example, the javadoc for java.lang.Runtime says this: More precisely, the command string is broken into tokens using a StringTokenizer created by the call new StringTokenizer(command) with no further modification of the character categories. The tokens produced by the tokenizer are then placed in the new string array cmdarray, in the same order. My guess is that `"The', `Certificate', and `Key"', are being treated as three separate arguments. Try providing the command as a String[], e.g. String cmd[] = { "gpg", "--homedir", System.getProperty("user.dir") + File.separator + ".gnupg", "-s", "-u", "The Certificate Key" }; runtime.exec(cmd); Steve From kurtc1972 at gmail.com Sat Aug 16 08:36:08 2008 From: kurtc1972 at gmail.com (kurt c) Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 23:36:08 -0700 Subject: revocation certificate command Message-ID: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone I'm back. I have two questions. First I read from this page http://futureboy.us/pgp.html that after I generated a new key with gpg --gen-key command I should follow it with gpg --gen-revoke command to generate a revocation certificate. But I only saw from my command prompt after typing it in: usage: gpg [options] --gen-revoke user-id What should I do now? I hope it's not too late to generate a revocation certificate now that the key has already been created and sent to keyserver. I shall be back with new email address bearing my exact name. Lawrence -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkimdVgACgkQE7PX/Y51jV+DJwCcDKr5P8gwcxI9pCyZphCAaW7K lyIAnikmOtxD4Tpz/KISeldYs2VokC11 =hCow -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sat Aug 16 11:25:44 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 04:25:44 -0500 Subject: revocation certificate command In-Reply-To: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> References: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A69D18.4090709@gmail.com> kurt c wrote: > What should I do now? I hope it's not too late to generate a revocation > certificate now that the key has already been created and sent to keyserver. Nope. If you lose your secret key, then it's too late. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 16 14:02:47 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:02:47 -0400 Subject: revocation certificate command In-Reply-To: <48A69D18.4090709@gmail.com> References: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> <48A69D18.4090709@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48A6C1E7.6000705@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Andrew Berg wrote: > kurt c wrote: >> What should I do now? I hope it's not too late to generate a revocation >> certificate now that the key has already been created and sent to keyserver. > > Nope. If you lose your secret key, then it's too late. Perhaps I mis-read the initial Question but if You still have the Secret Key & the passphrase then a Revocation Certificate may be generated at any time. You may generate the Certificate and store it separately from the Key and utilize it at any later time whether You possess the Key or passphrase. This is why it is strongly recommended that a Revocation Certificate be created at the time of Key generation and safely, securely stored for future use. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Saturday 16 Aug 2008, 08:02 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4812: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIpsHlAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPw30H/jQ7bLXk4RIwZlmDODKCblNA n5f4wY2WO6O50Tsrc+MGJ6A8BvwMfFqCh0KqIN0abqGlNiO9nYgvoj0fJyt/j5pu ke62OrsohYCbTLuDzhRynSuTpMQuR5HPrK6NKZiftVIovDc8WxkU3aP6Pt0WY2Rw zmAdls04bLmmC33z/pUdsh3WxEAp22GpAdZtlV39Sp5mYIbZb0yNySkzktkAQYme +hDWJHQ4QzvCUenuJp7UXe0XQOVEZrFDvhUWZ2xhbwsNSK5vOdcmyoPtJ9hUMctZ TLorrvMhZymq1L3Dq8zFwXeoQ6f71XDL2H7PP9V2lrRjCZHh3ALxJFphGrVqq6M= =gylS -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Sat Aug 16 14:24:45 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 08:24:45 -0400 Subject: revocation certificate command In-Reply-To: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> References: <48A67558.6020802@gmail.com> Message-ID: <0E18F16C-4F4B-46F8-A7B7-2BAA8FBC9A68@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 16, 2008, at 2:36 AM, kurt c wrote: > First I read from this page http://futureboy.us/pgp.html > that after I generated a new key with gpg --gen-key command I should > follow it with gpg --gen-revoke command to generate a revocation > certificate. But I only saw from my command prompt after typing it in: > > usage: gpg [options] --gen-revoke user-id > > What should I do now? I hope it's not too late to generate a > revocation > certificate now that the key has already been created and sent to > keyserver. No problem. So long as you have the secret key, you can generate a revocation certificate whenever you like. The common advice to generate the revocation certificate right after you generate the key is because people sometimes lose their secret key and are then unable to revoke it. If you generate the revocation certificate ahead of time and store it somewhere safe, then you can always revoke the key if you need to. Anyway, the command syntax you're looking for is: gpg --gen-revoke (name) Where (name) is a user ID on the key you are making a revocation certificate for. Once you do this, GPG will print out a certificate. Save this somewhere safe, and you're all set. David From f.schwind at chili-radiology.com Mon Aug 18 14:30:03 2008 From: f.schwind at chili-radiology.com (Florian Schwind) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:30:03 +0200 Subject: import and export with different gpg versions Message-ID: <48A96B4B.7040602@chili-radiology.com> Hi. I exported an key from my keyring with gpg 1.4.9 and tried to import it with gpg 1.2.4 on an other system. The import worked well until I tried to run gpg --update-trust-db which halted with an error: gpg: kein uneingeschr?nkt vertrauensw?rdiger Schl?ssel 080CB4A8 gefunden (which probably means "no ultimated truted key 080CB4A8 found") This is some kind of irritating me since I don't know nothing about this keyID. I do not have this key in the keyring whrer I exported the key from and I don't have it in the new keyring where I imported the key (which was previously empty). I even get this error when I remove the trustdb.gpg in $GPG_HOME an let gpg rebuild it! Is there a problem using this two version together? thx Florian From tchitwoo at us.ibm.com Mon Aug 18 21:42:07 2008 From: tchitwoo at us.ibm.com (Thomas Chitwood) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 12:42:07 -0700 Subject: SAS 70 Certification Message-ID: I have a customer wanting to know if the GNUpg encryption package is SAS 70 certified. Tom Chitwood MCP, MCSE, CNA Wellpoint Account Information Technology Services Americas Global Services, IBM 818.234.4118 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From carloswill at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 22:24:23 2008 From: carloswill at gmail.com (Carlos Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:24:23 -0400 Subject: Publish Certificates Message-ID: After I generate my GnuPG certificates on my system which is bound to my email address. What is the next step? Where do I export my public key at so that all I exchange keys with can verify myself? -- Man your battle stations... From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Aug 18 23:29:24 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 16:29:24 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> Carlos Williams wrote: > After I generate my GnuPG certificates on my system which is bound to > my email address. What is the next step? Where do I export my public > key at so that all I exchange keys with can verify myself? gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --send-key ... e.g., if your key ID was 0xDEADBEEF, you'd type gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --send-key 0xDEADBEEF Hope this helps! From carloswill at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 23:38:45 2008 From: carloswill at gmail.com (Carlos Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:38:45 -0400 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --send-key > > > > > ... e.g., if your key ID was 0xDEADBEEF, you'd type > > gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --send-key 0xDEADBEEF Thanks for the fast and helpful reply however I don't understand what you mean by ? I checked in my ~/.gnupg folder and found the following: /.gnupg$ ls -la total 32 drwx------ 2 carlos 1000 4096 2008-08-18 16:28 . drwxr-xr-x 30 carlos 1000 4096 2008-08-18 15:37 .. -rw------- 1 carlos 1000 28 2008-08-14 20:26 gpg.conf -rw------- 1 carlos users 1182 2008-08-18 16:28 pubring.gpg -rw------- 1 carlos users 1182 2008-08-18 16:28 pubring.gpg~ -rw------- 1 carlos users 600 2008-08-18 16:28 random_seed -rw------- 1 carlos users 1331 2008-08-18 16:28 secring.gpg -rw------- 1 carlos 1000 1280 2008-08-18 16:28 trustdb.gpg However I don't see anything that represents . From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Tue Aug 19 01:11:06 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:11:06 -0400 Subject: SAS 70 Certification In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3A271471-A1F7-4DEE-ABA1-AD11F72F9540@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 18, 2008, at 3:42 PM, Thomas Chitwood wrote: > I have a customer wanting to know if the GNUpg encryption package is > SAS 70 certified. No. SAS 70 is really more of an overall process audit statement. GnuPG is a program that can fit into such a process, of course, but it's not really a process itself. (For the curious: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAS_70) David From carloswill at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 02:55:41 2008 From: carloswill at gmail.com (Carlos Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:55:41 -0400 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: > gpg --list-keys carloswill at gmail.com > will show your public key's properties (including the key ID). How do I make out which is my key ID? It is not clear and I can't find any info? Also is my private data now compromised for posting this info publicly? carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --list-keys carloswill at gmail.com pub 1024D/8BF7AA16 2008-08-18 [expires: 2009-08-18] uid Carlos Williams sub 2048g/FF202C9C 2008-08-18 [expires: 2009-08-18] From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Aug 19 03:06:54 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:06:54 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> Carlos Williams wrote: > carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --list-keys carloswill at gmail.com > pub 1024D/8BF7AA16 2008-08-18 [expires: 2009-08-18] Your key ID is 0x8BF7AA16. You have not jeopardized your traffic by posting this, never fear. :) From carloswill at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 03:18:47 2008 From: carloswill at gmail.com (Carlos Williams) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:18:47 -0400 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 9:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Your key ID is 0x8BF7AA16. > > You have not jeopardized your traffic by posting this, never fear. :) Thanks all! I was able to run the following command with no problems: ========================================================================= carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --send-key 0x8BF7AA16 gpg: sending key 8BF7AA16 to hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net ========================================================================= I now wanted to know how do I check or verify others according to their signature block or when they do sign their messages? I went to http://sks-keyservers.net/ and don't see a "search" option or a way to look myself up to make sure my data imported to their site successfully. From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 03:04:24 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:04:24 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AA1C18.6020205@gmail.com> Carlos Williams wrote: > On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Andrew Berg wrote: >> gpg --list-keys carloswill at gmail.com >> will show your public key's properties (including the key ID). > > How do I make out which is my key ID? It is not clear and I can't find > any info? Also is my private data now compromised for posting this > info publicly? > > carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --list-keys carloswill at gmail.com > pub 1024D/8BF7AA16 2008-08-18 [expires: 2009-08-18] > uid Carlos Williams > sub 2048g/FF202C9C 2008-08-18 [expires: 2009-08-18] > 0x8BF7AA16 is your key ID the other is the subkey ID (there are many discussions on subkeys throughout the history of the list, so I'll not go into them here. And no, this information is not sensitive; it is for the public key, and reveals no information on your private key. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18000 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Tue Aug 19 02:00:09 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 20:00:09 -0400 Subject: import and export with different gpg versions In-Reply-To: <48A96B4B.7040602@chili-radiology.com> References: <48A96B4B.7040602@chili-radiology.com> Message-ID: <4E8063BA-7B5E-45D3-AF9C-2731CF1A5ADD@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 18, 2008, at 8:30 AM, Florian Schwind wrote: > Hi. > > I exported an key from my keyring with gpg 1.4.9 and tried to import > it with gpg 1.2.4 on an other system. The import worked well until I > tried to run gpg --update-trust-db which halted with an error: > > gpg: kein uneingeschr?nkt vertrauensw?rdiger Schl?ssel 080CB4A8 > gefunden > > (which probably means "no ultimated truted key 080CB4A8 found") > > This is some kind of irritating me since I don't know nothing about > this keyID. If I remember correctly, this error message is a bug that was fixed sometime after 1.2.4. The error message should be "no ultimately trusted key found" The particular key ID given is not correct. The error just means that you don't have an ultimately trusted key, and so cannot generate a trust database. I expect the key you just imported is the one you intend to use, so just make that your ultimately trusted key. On the 1.2.4 side: gpg --edit-key (your key id that you just imported) trust (set the key to "ultimate") save Then you should be able to build your trust database. David From John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org Tue Aug 19 04:37:34 2008 From: John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org (John Clizbe) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 21:37:34 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Carlos Williams wrote: > Thanks all! I was able to run the following command with no problems: > > ========================================================================= > > carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net > --send-key 0x8BF7AA16 > gpg: sending key 8BF7AA16 to hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net > > ========================================================================= > > I now wanted to know how do I check or verify others according to > their signature block or when they do sign their messages? I went to > http://sks-keyservers.net/ and don't see a "search" option or a way to > look myself up to make sure my data imported to their site > successfully. gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --search-keys \ carloswill at gmail.com BTW, It's there: sks at yogi:~# grep 8BF7AA16 /var/sks/db.log 2008-08-18 20:31:36 0 potential merges found for keyid 8BF7AA16 sks at yogi:~# The time is US/Central Daylight Time. I shuldn't take more than a hour to show up on all the SKS keyservers. Also, by including: keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve in gpg.conf, GnuPG will automagically search and retrieve keys needed to verify signatures 'include-subkeys' and 'include-revoked' are also useful keyserver-options. Just include them all on one line separated by a space, no quotes -- John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?" A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 677 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From harakiri_23 at yahoo.com Tue Aug 19 11:52:31 2008 From: harakiri_23 at yahoo.com (Harakiri) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 02:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Unable to run gpg command in JAVA In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <874554.39411.qm@web52209.mail.re2.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 8/14/08, Steve Revilak wrote: > From: Steve Revilak > > Try providing the command as a String[], e.g. > > String cmd[] = { > "gpg", > "--homedir", > System.getProperty("user.dir") + > File.separator + ".gnupg", > "-s", > "-u", > "The Certificate Key" > }; > > runtime.exec(cmd); > > All of that is still not the right way to do it, what people need to know about java is that Runtime.exec does not START a shell - i.e. its not a bash or anything you are used. This is a very old article but still true: http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-12-2000/jw-1229-traps.html there are better examples but google is your friend From kurtc1972 at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:40:10 2008 From: kurtc1972 at gmail.com (kurt c) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 03:40:10 -0700 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Message-ID: <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 John Clizbe wrote: > Carlos Williams wrote: >> Thanks all! I was able to run the following command with no problems: >> >> ========================================================================= >> >> carlos at laptop:~$ gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net >> --send-key 0x8BF7AA16 >> gpg: sending key 8BF7AA16 to hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net >> >> ========================================================================= >> >> I now wanted to know how do I check or verify others according to >> their signature block or when they do sign their messages? I went to >> http://sks-keyservers.net/ and don't see a "search" option or a way to >> look myself up to make sure my data imported to their site >> successfully. > > gpg --keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net --search-keys \ > carloswill at gmail.com > > BTW, It's there: > > sks at yogi:~# grep 8BF7AA16 /var/sks/db.log > 2008-08-18 20:31:36 0 potential merges found for keyid 8BF7AA16 > sks at yogi:~# > > The time is US/Central Daylight Time. I shuldn't take more than a hour to show > up on all the SKS keyservers. > > Also, by including: > > keyserver x-hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net > keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve > > in gpg.conf, GnuPG will automagically search and retrieve keys needed to verify > signatures > > 'include-subkeys' and 'include-revoked' are also useful keyserver-options. > Just include them all on one line separated by a space, no quotes > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users Carlos, I was not able to find your public key on keyservers. Did you export it at all? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkiqowoACgkQE7PX/Y51jV+bOQCgs8ar381KB3Zsg5uUNEn547oe r9AAoNS+TIgXUOTUWVVUlPjDorpplqzI =uNmI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Aug 19 12:53:20 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 05:53:20 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AAA620.1010304@sixdemonbag.org> kurt c wrote: > Carlos, I was not able to find your public key on keyservers. Did you > export it at all? 1. Please trim your quotes. 2. I can confirm John: it's there. ===== job:~ rjh$ gpg --recv-key 8bf7aa16 gpg: requesting key 8BF7AA16 from hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net gpg: key 8BF7AA16: public key "Carlos Williams " imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: imported: 1 From jpsecher at gmail.com Tue Aug 19 12:01:23 2008 From: jpsecher at gmail.com (Jens Peter Secher) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:01:23 +0200 Subject: gpg-agent, ssh-add & crypto card keys Message-ID: On one system (Debian Lenny), I am using an SSH key on a FSFE Fellowship crypto card to make SSH logins to a remote host, mostly by using Karsten Gerloff's instructions [1], and this functionality is indeed "extremely cool". I have now tried to do the same on another system (also Debian Lenny), and everything works fine except that ssh-add is seeing the SSH key on the crypto card. In other words, I can see what's on the crypto card $ gpg --card-status Application ID ...: D2760001240101010001000003330000 Version ..........: 1.1 [...] Authentication key: 4507 9CAC A220 8806 97C4 8F5F 6723 EF78 69F7 F9A5 created ....: 2008-04-05 18:34:49 General key info..: pub 1024R/68FBACED 2008-04-05 Jens Peter Secher sec# 1024D/6818E016 created: 2008-04-05 expires: never ssb> 1024R/69F7F9A5 created: 2008-04-05 expires: never card-no: 0001 00000333 [...] I can encrypt and decrypt: $ gpg -e foo.txt $ gpg -d foo.txt.gpg which makes pinentry-gtk-2 ask me my passphrase. gpg-agent is started with '--enable-ssh-support', and the environment seems right: $ set | egrep 'AGENT|SSH' GPG_AGENT_INFO=/tmp/gpg-7ciDXH/S.gpg-agent:3429:1 SSH_AGENT_PID=3429 SSH_AUTH_SOCK=/tmp/gpg-zsc6dQ/S.gpg-agent.ssh But 'ssh-add -l' shows no keys. ssh-add has an option '-s reader', but I cannot figure out what 'reader' should be, and tracing trough the source code does not make me any wiser. Do anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? -- Jens Peter Secher. _DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_. A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? [1] http://www.fsfe.org/en/card/howto/subkey_howto and http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/authenticating_ssh_logins_with_the_fellowship_crypto_card From bhushan1988 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 00:32:06 2008 From: bhushan1988 at gmail.com (Bhushan Jain) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 04:02:06 +0530 Subject: Securely delete files... Message-ID: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> Hi all, I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? -- Thanks, -------------- Bhushan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Wed Aug 20 02:32:08 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:32:08 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 19, 2008, at 6:32 PM, Bhushan Jain wrote: > Hi all, > I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? PGP has a secure delete feature, yes. However, as you are asking this question of the GnuPG list, I suspect you mean to ask about GnuPG. GnuPG does not have a secure delete feature. David From steve at srevilak.net Wed Aug 20 02:49:50 2008 From: steve at srevilak.net (Steve Revilak) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:49:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Unable to run gpg command in JAVA Message-ID: nishant> open(COMMAND, "echo $text | gpg --homedir $ENV{HOME}/.gnupg -s -u \"The Certificate Key\" |"); srevilak> Try providing the command as a String[], e.g. srevilak> srevilak> String cmd[] = { srevilak> "gpg", srevilak> "--homedir", srevilak> System.getProperty("user.dir") + File.separator + ".gnupg", srevilak> "-s", srevilak> "-u", srevilak> "The Certificate Key" srevilak> }; srevilak> srevilak> runtime.exec(cmd); Harakiri> All of that is still not the right way to do it, what people Harakiri> need to know about java is that Runtime.exec does not START Harakiri> a shell - i.e. its not a bash or anything you are used. Sorry, my java example was more incomplete than it should have been. I was only trying to show how to preserve the integrity of command-line arguments, and I completed glossed over the mechanics of writing data to and reading data back from from the gpg process. As you note, Runtime.exec does not start a shell; it's much closer in spirit to C's execv than to perl's piped open. Steve From atom at smasher.org Wed Aug 20 00:53:37 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:53:37 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080819225339.26938.qmail@smasher.org> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Bhushan Jain wrote: > I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? ================= you wouldn't use a hammer to put in screws, would you? there are tools for deleting files, but gpg isn't in the list. start with this one - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srm_%E2%80%93_Secure_Remove or google for `secure delete` and add the operating system & file system that you're concerned about. be aware that some file systems make the job of ~really~ deleting files difficult or impossible. -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "In fact a vegan driving a hummer would be contributing less greenhouse gas carbon emissions than a meat eater riding a bicycle." -- Capt Paul Watson, A Very Inconvenient Truth From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 20 04:12:50 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:12:50 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AB7DA2.3080601@sixdemonbag.org> Bhushan Jain wrote: > I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? Assuming you meant GnuPG, the answer is 'no'. Assuming you meant PGP, the answer is 'maybe'. PGP provides a secure deletion tool, but as far as I know there has never been any serious independent study of its effectiveness. I would suggest asking PGP Corporation, or perhaps asking on the PGP-Basics mailing list over at Yahoo! Groups. From atom at smasher.org Wed Aug 20 01:57:35 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:57:35 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080819235737.30012.qmail@smasher.org> this might be a better link if you're looking for a tool - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutmann_method#Software_implementations -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana. -- Buddha From kurtc1972 at gmail.com Wed Aug 20 06:58:54 2008 From: kurtc1972 at gmail.com (kurt c) Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 21:58:54 -0700 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48AAA620.1010304@sixdemonbag.org> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> <48AAA620.1010304@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48ABA48E.7000007@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Robert J. Hansen wrote: > kurt c wrote: >> Carlos, I was not able to find your public key on keyservers. Did you >> export it at all? > > 1. Please trim your quotes. > > 2. I can confirm John: it's there. > > > ===== > > job:~ rjh$ gpg --recv-key 8bf7aa16 > > gpg: requesting key 8BF7AA16 from hkp server pool.sks-keyservers.net > gpg: key 8BF7AA16: public key "Carlos Williams " > imported > gpg: Total number processed: 1 > gpg: imported: 1 > What is this "job:~ rjh$ gpg" command? It sure didn't work on my vista command prompt... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkirpI4ACgkQE7PX/Y51jV84QQCeIOKXefvJc2bUmmeEpypA0YE6 gB0AnjT9g1HG9U9eBk/kHxl5V/nRoXQ6 =5qrw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 20 07:09:01 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:09:01 -0400 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48ABA48E.7000007@gmail.com> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> <48AAA620.1010304@sixdemonbag.org> <48ABA48E.7000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48ABA6ED.3020604@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 kurt c wrote: > What is this "job:~ rjh$ gpg" command? It sure didn't work on my vista > command prompt... Perhaps because You are neither rjh or on a machine labeled rjh. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Wednesday 20 Aug 2008, 01:08 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4815: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIq6brAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsP9hoH/RHF9UBH2RglvhUjP0RkZdvK TIt9UuJFQIbIDXYKum7K77JDwOQxyWAdvGnpTToLfto9KxO3c/tqyVb2ZhmXsS7R DiKGDMgVxLpGChuYeZnul5rT8hXe/FOHuCAz/5jWnhd6+7Gx4aFkgsIqERnXVKd9 jPU5oCS9geNqVCYFgGRxnsxuuuc9Mh4IheQ0lMx0hKCj5xtb7GQ2C4mFk2odtWdn ZZkPof7nWuOYRA9v0zie3dupzeXOWR4xtEOPpqTjRYD4GWHCdG9QrTcgp6CQzCWN GLrwSqfmWLWjlimHtaYRS/aseNwy+BTf1wXSfLgNO/bFIJqMpvcHDF6d20ErRUg= =dfT+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 20 07:53:26 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 00:53:26 -0500 Subject: Publish Certificates In-Reply-To: <48ABA48E.7000007@gmail.com> References: <48A9E9B4.9010008@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA12E1.1060401@gmail.com> <48AA1CAE.3010303@sixdemonbag.org> <48AA31EE.5050801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> <48AAA30A.6020605@gmail.com> <48AAA620.1010304@sixdemonbag.org> <48ABA48E.7000007@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48ABB156.3040304@sixdemonbag.org> kurt c wrote: > What is this "job:~ rjh$ gpg" command? It sure didn't work on my vista > command prompt... First, don't type in commands if you don't understand what they are or what they're doing. If you typed in "job:~ rjh$ gpg" just because you saw it in an email of mine, I can only imagine what you'd do if you saw "del *.*" in another email. ... Anyway. It's a UNIX command prompt. It identifies my machine as "job", my current directory as $HOME, and my login as rjh. My naming scheme uses the books of the Bible. Each machine gets a unique and easy to remember name, and it makes it quite easy to tell whether a given system is newer or older than another. E.g., ezra is older than psalms. Ironically, psalms is my iPod. From sattva at pgpru.com Wed Aug 20 09:04:08 2008 From: sattva at pgpru.com (Vlad "SATtva" Miller) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:04:08 +0700 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AB7DA2.3080601@sixdemonbag.org> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <48AB7DA2.3080601@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48ABC1E8.5080503@pgpru.com> Robert J. Hansen (20.08.2008 09:12): > Bhushan Jain wrote: >> I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? > > Assuming you meant GnuPG, the answer is 'no'. > > Assuming you meant PGP, the answer is 'maybe'. PGP provides a secure > deletion tool, but as far as I know there has never been any serious > independent study of its effectiveness. It employs Gutmann's methodology on secure file erasure, so there *is* a study of its effectiveness. -- SATtva | security & privacy consulting www.vladmiller.info | www.pgpru.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 513 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 20 09:21:24 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:21:24 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ABC1E8.5080503@pgpru.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <48AB7DA2.3080601@sixdemonbag.org> <48ABC1E8.5080503@pgpru.com> Message-ID: <48ABC5F4.9090803@sixdemonbag.org> Vlad "SATtva" Miller wrote: > It employs Gutmann's methodology on secure file erasure, so there > *is* a study of its effectiveness. No one in the private sector has ever claimed to be able to recover data overwritten even once. Think about it this way. The next two people you see today, one of them is carrying my tiger-proof rock, and the other one isn't. You can't tell whether my tiger-proof rock is actually working, because there are no tigers around trying to eat people. So my tiger-proof rock is really effective, huh? The next two hard drives you see today, imagine one of them is shredded by the Gutmann method and the other one is overwritten just once. You can't tell whether Gutmann's method is effective, because there's nobody able to read either. So Gutmann's method is really effective, huh? From wk at gnupg.org Wed Aug 20 10:02:25 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:02:25 +0200 Subject: gpg-agent, ssh-add & crypto card keys In-Reply-To: (Jens Peter Secher's message of "Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:01:23 +0200") References: Message-ID: <87fxp0dsha.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 19 Aug 2008 12:01, jpsecher at gmail.com said: > Do anyone have any suggestions on how to proceed? Check out whether scdaemon is working, example: $ gpg-connect-agent > scd serialno S SERIALNO D2760001240101010001000003470000 0 OK > Youy probably get an error here. To further investigate this, you first need to see whether scdaemon has been started (by gpg-agent). If that is the case, you add log-file /tmp/foo/scd.log debug-ccid-driver debug 2028 debug 1024 to ~/.gnupg/scdaemon.conf and kill scdaemon (check that it is really killed, usually it required two sigints). The log file will give you an idea on what scdaemon is doing. Take care, the debug options may reveals PINs. You can also add this to gpg-agent.conf: log-file /tmp/foo/agent.log debug 1024 and give gpg-agent a HUP. To see everything compined in one log, use log-file socket:///foo/bar/S.gnupg-log instead of the file name and run watchgnupg --force /foo/bar/S.gnupg-log in another xterm. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From wk at gnupg.org Wed Aug 20 10:08:32 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 10:08:32 +0200 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> (David Shaw's message of "Tue, 19 Aug 2008 20:32:08 -0400") References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32, dshaw at jabberwocky.com said: > However, as you are asking this question of the GnuPG list, I suspect > you mean to ask about GnuPG. GnuPG does not have a secure delete > feature. Let me add that one reason for not providing a secure deletetion feature is that gpg is Unix tool and as such it is usually operated in a pipeline and does not work directly with files. Most Unix systems these days have secure deletion tools like shred(1) or wipe(1). However, I doubt that they are any effective when used with modern disks. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From raviuday at gmail.com Mon Aug 18 20:30:21 2008 From: raviuday at gmail.com (Ravi Uday) Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:30:21 -0700 Subject: failure to install Message-ID: <56b92dda0808181130h76fa9cf6v6cb567ca765af76f@mail.gmail.com> Hi, Unable to install gnupg-1.4.9 .. Making install in zlib make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/zlib' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/zlib' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/zlib' make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/zlib' Making install in util make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/util' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/util' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/util' make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/util' Making install in mpi make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/mpi' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/mpi' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/mpi' make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/mpi' Making install in cipher make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/cipher' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/cipher' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-exec-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Nothing to be done for `install-data-am'. make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/cipher' make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/cipher' Making install in tools make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/tools' make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Entering directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/tools' test -z "/usr/local/bin" || /usr/company/bin/gmkdir -p "/usr/local/bin" /usr/company/bin/ginstall -c 'gpgsplit' '/usr/local/bin/gpgsplit' /usr/company/bin/ginstall: cannot remove `/usr/local/bin/gpgsplit': Read-only file system make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: *** [install-binPROGRAMS] Error 1 make-3.79.1-p3a[2]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/tools' make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: *** [install-am] Error 2 make-3.79.1-p3a[1]: Leaving directory `/users/ruday/gnupg-1.4.9/tools' make-3.79.1-p3a: *** [install-recursive] Error 1 bash-2.05b$ From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Aug 20 12:47:43 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:47:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] failure to install In-Reply-To: <56b92dda0808181130h76fa9cf6v6cb567ca765af76f@mail.gmail.com> References: <56b92dda0808181130h76fa9cf6v6cb567ca765af76f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > /usr/company/bin/ginstall: cannot remove `/usr/local/bin/gpgsplit': > Read-only file > system > bash-2.05b$ 1. You are not root enough (no problem is /usr/local/bin writable by you) and 2. You forgot to remount /usr/local to r/w Gabor From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Aug 20 13:47:39 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 13:47:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] failure to install In-Reply-To: References: <56b92dda0808181130h76fa9cf6v6cb567ca765af76f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: > 1. You are not root enough (no problem is /usr/local/bin writable by you) Ooops! I mean "no problem if /usr/local/bin is writable by you" Gabor From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Wed Aug 20 15:58:02 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:58:02 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ABC1E8.5080503@pgpru.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <48AB7DA2.3080601@sixdemonbag.org> <48ABC1E8.5080503@pgpru.com> Message-ID: <0391B330-3449-41D7-A4E2-633284DD97C8@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 20, 2008, at 3:04 AM, Vlad SATtva Miller wrote: > Robert J. Hansen (20.08.2008 09:12): >> Bhushan Jain wrote: >>> I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? >> >> Assuming you meant GnuPG, the answer is 'no'. >> >> Assuming you meant PGP, the answer is 'maybe'. PGP provides a secure >> deletion tool, but as far as I know there has never been any serious >> independent study of its effectiveness. > > It employs Gutmann's methodology on secure file erasure, so there > *is* a > study of its effectiveness. Note, though, the postscript that Gutmann added on to his paper in later years: > In the time since this paper was published, some people have treated > the 35-pass overwrite technique described in it more as a kind of > voodoo incantation to banish evil spirits than the result of a > technical analysis of drive encoding techniques. As a result, they > advocate applying the voodoo to PRML and EPRML drives even though it > will have no more effect than a simple scrubbing with random data. > In fact performing the full 35-pass overwrite is pointless for any > drive since it targets a blend of scenarios involving all types of > (normally-used) encoding technology, which covers everything back to > 30+-year-old MFM methods (if you don't understand that statement, re- > read the paper). If you're using a drive which uses encoding > technology X, you only need to perform the passes specific to X, and > you never need to perform all 35 passes. For any modern PRML/EPRML > drive, a few passes of random scrubbing is the best you can do. As > the paper says, "A good scrubbing with random data will do about as > well as can be expected". This was true in 1996, and is still true > now. The operative phrase here is "A good scrubbing with random data will do about as well as can be expected". The world of hard drives has evolved since 1996, and unless you're pulling your hard drives from 10-15 year old machines, the only relevant parts of the 35-pass Gutmann methodology are going to be the random ones. David From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Wed Aug 20 15:59:05 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:59:05 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <8DCAEE70-82F3-4227-8AA9-1D67F018775B@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 20, 2008, at 4:08 AM, Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32, dshaw at jabberwocky.com said: > >> However, as you are asking this question of the GnuPG list, I suspect >> you mean to ask about GnuPG. GnuPG does not have a secure delete >> feature. > > Let me add that one reason for not providing a secure deletetion > feature > is that gpg is Unix tool and as such it is usually operated in a > pipeline and does not work directly with files. > > Most Unix systems these days have secure deletion tools like > shred(1) or > wipe(1). However, I doubt that they are any effective when used with > modern disks. There is some debate on whether a well-funded adversary can recover a useful amount of data (say enough to reconstruct a fragment of a file) from a disk that has been overwritten multiple times. It's an interesting debate, but for many situations the question is somewhat moot. Hard drive prices are so low these days that if the drive contains sensitive material that should not be exposed "no matter what", just destroy the drive. If you're designing a system that requires that level of security, then the price of a new hard drive now and then is included. For what it's worth, the US government recently changed their regulations on what qualifies for "clearing" (basically removal that can foil an undelete function or games with 'dd' and 'grep') and "sanitizing" (removal that can foil a laboratory). The notable difference is that in the new regulations, you cannot use any overwrite method to sanitize a disk. The only way to sanitize is to degauss the drive or physically destroy the thing. David From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Aug 20 16:11:16 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 09:11:16 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <8DCAEE70-82F3-4227-8AA9-1D67F018775B@jabberwocky.com> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <8DCAEE70-82F3-4227-8AA9-1D67F018775B@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <48AC2604.7010504@sixdemonbag.org> David Shaw wrote: > The notable difference is that in the new regulations, you cannot use > any overwrite method to sanitize a disk. The only way to sanitize is > to degauss the drive or physically destroy the thing. If anyone on the list is an EE or a physics geek looking for a good paper, it might be interesting to explore using the Curie Point as a data erasure technique. For a lot of the exotic magnetic materials used in modern hard drives, the Curie Point is pretty remarkably low -- it might be possible to put a drive in a toaster oven, raise the temperature to the Curie Point, take it out, let the drive cool, and have the platter surfaces be randomized. I've been intending to do this one for a couple of years now, but every time I get around to looking into it I always find something else to spend money on besides hard drives to destroy... From kunalvshah at comcast.net Wed Aug 20 16:41:49 2008 From: kunalvshah at comcast.net (kunalvshah at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:41:49 +0000 Subject: Securely delete files... Message-ID: <082020081441.20263.48AC2D2D000ED2B600004F272215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> http://www.fileshredder.org/ File Shredder works perfectly great for this purpose. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Atom Smasher > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Bhushan Jain wrote: > > > I wanted to know how could the file be deleted securely using PGP? > ================= > > you wouldn't use a hammer to put in screws, would you? there are tools for > deleting files, but gpg isn't in the list. start with this one - > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srm_%E2%80%93_Secure_Remove > > or google for `secure delete` and add the operating system & file system > that you're concerned about. > > be aware that some file systems make the job of ~really~ deleting files > difficult or impossible. > > > -- > ...atom > > ________________________ > http://atom.smasher.org/ > 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 > ------------------------------------------------- > > "In fact a vegan driving a hummer would be contributing > less greenhouse gas carbon emissions than a meat eater > riding a bicycle." > -- Capt Paul Watson, A Very Inconvenient Truth > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kunalvshah at comcast.net Wed Aug 20 16:45:25 2008 From: kunalvshah at comcast.net (kunalvshah at comcast.net) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:45:25 +0000 Subject: Securely delete files... Message-ID: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> To check the effectiveness, according to DoD anything that is not wiped with algorithm DoD 5220.22M has potential to be recovered. File shredder works well with DoD algorithm and higher. Also it is free. If you are looking to wipe a disk,you can use DiskNuke. Both are sourceforge.net projects. -------------- Original message -------------- From: Werner Koch > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:32, dshaw at jabberwocky.com said: > > > However, as you are asking this question of the GnuPG list, I suspect > > you mean to ask about GnuPG. GnuPG does not have a secure delete > > feature. > > Let me add that one reason for not providing a secure deletetion feature > is that gpg is Unix tool and as such it is usually operated in a > pipeline and does not work directly with files. > > Most Unix systems these days have secure deletion tools like shred(1) or > wipe(1). However, I doubt that they are any effective when used with > modern disks. > > > Salam-Shalom, > > Werner > > -- > Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org > > Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mwood at IUPUI.Edu Wed Aug 20 18:04:39 2008 From: mwood at IUPUI.Edu (Mark H. Wood) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:04:39 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... [going further off topic] In-Reply-To: <48AC2604.7010504@sixdemonbag.org> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <8DCAEE70-82F3-4227-8AA9-1D67F018775B@jabberwocky.com> <48AC2604.7010504@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <20080820160439.GB16104@IUPUI.Edu> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 09:11:16AM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > If anyone on the list is an EE or a physics geek looking for a good > paper, it might be interesting to explore using the Curie Point as a > data erasure technique. For a lot of the exotic magnetic materials used > in modern hard drives, the Curie Point is pretty remarkably low -- it > might be possible to put a drive in a toaster oven, raise the > temperature to the Curie Point, take it out, let the drive cool, and > have the platter surfaces be randomized. Hmmm. You'd have to ensure that every point within the coating on every platter reaches the critical temperature (perhaps for a minimum amount of time?). That sounds too uncertain when certain destruction is required. The binder in the coating also has some critical temperatures and might do Interesting Things before reaching the pigment's Curie Point. In a sealed box, no less. I have no idea what will happen, but maybe you should before trying the experiment. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood at IUPUI.Edu Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he means the exact opposite. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Wed Aug 20 19:58:22 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:58:22 +0200 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> (kunalvshah@comcast.net's message of "Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:45:25 +0000") References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> Message-ID: <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:45, kunalvshah at comcast.net said: > If you are looking to wipe a disk,you can use DiskNuke. Both are sourceforge.net projects. You cannot clear a modern drive using external software! It doesn't matter what validated software algorithm you use. Drives may reorder sectors on the fly, they use read and write caches and do all kind of tricks to squeeze out more performance. There are even solid state buffers so that sometimes things won't get written to the platters at all. After all there is software between you and the magnetics. That software needs to allow you to do what you want but it properly won't. Sure it is not easy to get the data directly from the platters but there are enough labs which can do that. If you want to protect against this, plain physical force is the way to go. It is pretty easy to open a drive case and use a hammer to break the platters into small pieces. The last time I swung my hammer onto an opened drive, it looked as if the platters were made up of ceramic substrate: a lot of small pieces hit my safety goggles. That won't be an easy puzzle to solve. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From cwal989 at comcast.net Wed Aug 20 22:00:19 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:00:19 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> Werner Koch wrote: > You cannot clear a modern drive using external software! It doesn't > matter what validated software algorithm you use. Drives may reorder > sectors on the fly, they use read and write caches and do all kind of > tricks to squeeze out more performance. There are even solid state > buffers so that sometimes things won't get written to the platters at > all. > > After all there is software between you and the magnetics. That > software needs to allow you to do what you want but it properly won't. > > Sure it is not easy to get the data directly from the platters but there > are enough labs which can do that. If you want to protect against this, > plain physical force is the way to go. It is pretty easy to open a > drive case and use a hammer to break the platters into small pieces. > The last time I swung my hammer onto an opened drive, it looked as if > the platters were made up of ceramic substrate: a lot of small pieces > hit my safety goggles. That won't be an easy puzzle to solve. > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple times with a shotgun. The only sure way to make sure no one can recover your data is to put it into a blast furnace (this would be hot enough to melt the whole thing into a puddle, and would cause substantial mixing between the ferro-magnetic alloy and the titanium internal structure. Regards, Chris From mwood at IUPUI.Edu Wed Aug 20 22:18:47 2008 From: mwood at IUPUI.Edu (Mark H. Wood) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:18:47 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20080820201847.GC24603@IUPUI.Edu> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:00:19PM -0400, Chris Walters wrote: > I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has > successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple > times with a shotgun. > > The only sure way to make sure no one can recover your data is to put it into a > blast furnace (this would be hot enough to melt the whole thing into a puddle, > and would cause substantial mixing between the ferro-magnetic alloy and the > titanium internal structure. Have they ever tried a disk that's had the coating polished off with a wire-wheel chucked into a portable drill? Dust is usually fairly random. Or how about supposedly happened to the Purple cipher machine just before Pearl was hit: hammered to bits, dissolved in acid, poured in the flower beds. -- Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer mwood at IUPUI.Edu Typically when a software vendor says that a product is "intuitive" he means the exact opposite. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Wed Aug 20 22:21:04 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:21:04 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Chris Walters wrote: > Werner Koch wrote: >> That won't be an easy puzzle to solve. > I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has > successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple > times with a shotgun. Note that Werner said _easy_ & not impossible. Also, debris from a shotgun blast is probably larger than that left behind by a ball peen hammer. U.S. Government Destruction Standards require the use of thermite. I believe that We are all agreed that physical destruction of the HD is the only truly effective means of ensuring Data cannot be recovered. The method remains left to the carelessness of the targeted Individual. :-D JOHN ;) Timestamp: Wednesday 20 Aug 2008, 16:20 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4815: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIrHyvAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPgBoH/2/XtJfamhvpjhI72OuDap+w kN7j34MfsAhBTS/2dOPK6d9F+4qPeTCanYOt+3slaNr9MP5U681f8l7QvGmyA6hj 2n67vUe4lr77GggYmr5ak8dvDbh3yCeEw79OFtR4ARkOqR1wKddUSU/MaawCDUsw 8Lx7v5IzPxYYkDCOjNnvMlZ3P9DaWzgaa5rm3bn1Vll8y37xcEIcTzAmhVhJ/vMd D0blCSNtl5i9EolQ6IQSiEg/QeoN/ZIy7PavXMu088tQH15YI+16qcg2eEEAauv/ I5POhEnFwQtXwMFKMBAIfZJfaeIiOYQeq3i/iC2jPThE2iSHwQ+36HKuk4fev/M= =KUcR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cwal989 at comcast.net Wed Aug 20 22:42:35 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:42:35 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48AC81BB.4020103@comcast.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 John W. Moore III wrote: > Chris Walters wrote: >> Werner Koch wrote: > >>> That won't be an easy puzzle to solve. > >> I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has >> successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple >> times with a shotgun. > > Note that Werner said _easy_ & not impossible. Also, debris from a > shotgun blast is probably larger than that left behind by a ball peen > hammer. U.S. Government Destruction Standards require the use of thermite. > > I believe that We are all agreed that physical destruction of the HD is > the only truly effective means of ensuring Data cannot be recovered. > The method remains left to the carelessness of the targeted Individual. :-D > > JOHN ;) > Timestamp: Wednesday 20 Aug 2008, 16:20 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) Hey, it wasn't an attack - just an observation... Besides, if the information you have is that sensitive, you probably work for a government (or against one). Certainly, I would agree that physical destruction of the drive is the only certain means of making recovery of your data difficult, if not impossible. I'll leave the means up to those who want such a thing, as I don't... Regards, Chris -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJIrIG4AAoJEE8J0h3nbis2tTUQAORYjq6thdf0Y7jdZ4AbUxRv xlhZfTFSseCGrdsQYTbKD3KOBhKUPyn8Qmea4xFjLeQikzBQbCJbIGyO5OkIxZlH tPao+gQyvWG3fQZMcYNKC6wZrAQM42wHDhkCR09hlNErbnPmLwczHJf35oaSRvjs LLVDC+dYTbX2FjKNjX5KxLZJVST0I8m45+f7O/6goCzFIslZJjQSBel36mXma9lc QwSWceOcLmZbPQBK9xB2SswmCpna2ekiv64RgbXILfHQX9DGm7nzlKABw4dcq30Z vo07Y+C+yA9gvgy6m0mRWt5Le4Ku53C0RXSWp1OAtuzGEPe9he8fTVXvzSLpULl2 E0U4agp7gKpy9cntVheZttRuEWvbikoS3IvPOcY82WK4eexB9Rm4emjRDUT+CyM0 CYhqqK1FDYuLX89HF2XTeNFX4JyC/l4dGCrI9ltTYwIFKEZJttxj/ENv11pDqKYd zqRRWNsQnsOapajYLV5Tc/Q1gqHKYkSgbveubIwMyHXv/41cfX0BSt+cdiih1h2/ G22/X0jozIGOl6LZKDnxh+9Ip3YDl9OpNde279Gpixy+hMhcu1bNSAVl4lWeqHkW S7hJTy0CajE68CaDVi1qEX01g1LLOoM4CAH+j1rtN40VQ6DUwfZTNeLmgiRu8k7o HrvkZdQQzCbouN0h7qcU =Tecz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From lists at michel-messerschmidt.de Wed Aug 20 22:51:10 2008 From: lists at michel-messerschmidt.de (Michel Messerschmidt) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 22:51:10 +0200 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <20080820205109.GA9877@koshi.matrix> On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:21:04PM -0400, John W. Moore III wrote: > I believe that We are all agreed that physical destruction of the HD is > the only truly effective means of ensuring Data cannot be recovered. There is also the possibility to use encryption for *all* data on a harddisk. If the key is stored somewhere else (e.g. in your mind or on another disk), this may prevent data recovery on a similar level. -- ~> rpm -q --whatrequires linux no package requires linux From cwal989 at comcast.net Wed Aug 20 22:51:50 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:51:50 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080820201847.GC24603@IUPUI.Edu> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> <20080820201847.GC24603@IUPUI.Edu> Message-ID: <48AC83E6.60506@comcast.net> Mark H. Wood wrote: > On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 04:00:19PM -0400, Chris Walters wrote: >> I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has >> successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple >> times with a shotgun. >> >> The only sure way to make sure no one can recover your data is to put it into a >> blast furnace (this would be hot enough to melt the whole thing into a puddle, >> and would cause substantial mixing between the ferro-magnetic alloy and the >> titanium internal structure. > > Have they ever tried a disk that's had the coating polished off with a > wire-wheel chucked into a portable drill? Dust is usually fairly > random. > > Or how about supposedly happened to the Purple cipher machine just > before Pearl was hit: hammered to bits, dissolved in acid, poured in the > flower beds. Don't really know. You'd have to ask the F.B.I. Reducing the entire drive (including the chips) to dust would probably do about what I suggested would. That is, it would likely make it impossible for anyone to recover data from the drive. As would placing it in a nuclear reactor, and probably doing a thousand other things. I just like my method, because once it congealed, you'd have modern art. LOL. Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From atom at smasher.org Thu Aug 21 00:20:03 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:20:03 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20080820222005.53004.qmail@smasher.org> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Chris Walters wrote: > I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory > has successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were > shot multiple times with a shotgun. ============== that wouldn't surprise me, but is there a reference for it? i would think the hard part would be finding all (enough?) of the pieces. was the platter actually shot? or just the case? > The only sure way to make sure no one can recover your data is to put it > into a blast furnace (this would be hot enough to melt the whole thing > into a puddle, and would cause substantial mixing between the > ferro-magnetic alloy and the titanium internal structure. ================ even then, some smart-ass will eventually come along and demonstrate how data can be recovered, even from the lump of metal ;) -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death." -- Martin Luther King, Jr. From atom at smasher.org Thu Aug 21 00:30:21 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:30:21 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080820205109.GA9877@koshi.matrix> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> <20080820205109.GA9877@koshi.matrix> Message-ID: <20080820223024.85152.qmail@smasher.org> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Michel Messerschmidt wrote: > There is also the possibility to use encryption for *all* data on a > harddisk. If the key is stored somewhere else (e.g. in your mind or on > another disk), this may prevent data recovery on a similar level. =============== encrypted disks, and some random passes from dban makes me feel warm and fuzzy when i give away my old disks to computer reuse/recycle places. to paraphrase from (IIRC) the diceware page, if you're disks are sensitive enough that you have to melt them with thermite when you're done with them, a more immediate problem is how well are you paying your armed guards ;) -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "God save the queen and her fascist regime" -- Sex Pistols From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 03:09:04 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:09:04 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Werner Koch escribi?: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:45, kunalvshah at comcast.net said: > >> If you are looking to wipe a disk,you can use DiskNuke. Both are sourceforge.net projects. > > You cannot clear a modern drive using external software! It doesn't Well, I can't say this discussion is not interesting, and I am not complaining at all if it is not really on topic to this list (I mean, if this thread goes on 1 week, I will still be reading all the messages), but it is a bit too esoteric for me (and I am sure there are other people feeling the same way), so, lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it without going to "extreme" solutions? I have seen advices about using ccleaner, fileshredder, erase57, and other tools like those, but after reading a lot about how difficult is to make data unrecoverable, I am not sure if it is worth to even try... The idea is to make deleted files (not whole drives) unrecoverable to commercial recovery software, I am not interested in protecting myself against government class laboratories (if a judge ever wants to see my data, I would rather give it, and privately laugh about the resources spent to recover harmless data). > are enough labs which can do that. If you want to protect against this, > plain physical force is the way to go. It is pretty easy to open a > drive case and use a hammer to break the platters into small pieces. > The last time I swung my hammer onto an opened drive, it looked as if > the platters were made up of ceramic substrate: a lot of small pieces > hit my safety goggles. That won't be an easy puzzle to solve. A bit extreme for my needs... however, I figure that is the way to go, if I was a bank trying to protect my customer's info. Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIrMAwAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAhFUH/jd+u1j6cd7u11emuhmANpTL f0gbrybL159gbFkOIpQCUJ63ICU1d9cBqF+0+ao/8D0UYCwdpzf6S3Lj3z5+eIey K+wB8CIGOYAAqBfo75YuVVy8Or5E8fYyPLFs8JFX4kSXLx6ystw4dLM1/V2m/Yfv 0EEWk0u5Hz8cnZ1bAxqoKsicJJv/qA4O9dAVoJX9sVZuZVeCag8JDoit9gkDzfmo UWTV9r71IvDItSZVPmGI2R4jGPLhLggyjJFSx6vmw2xG8afWVajSZzrOIiDh2SbV kr0U8anCUqEspfyfd4WKLJCJeuqylmYag0g3VsK+IPJKDLEQB6arBuXynXsAUwM= =UzX/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 03:17:05 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:17:05 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... [going further off topic] In-Reply-To: <20080820160439.GB16104@IUPUI.Edu> References: <62fd3c0a0808191532o31667c24v3b60894a6d31fc35@mail.gmail.com> <36AE297C-D57F-4416-9F11-E30F2E9F075E@jabberwocky.com> <87bpzods73.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <8DCAEE70-82F3-4227-8AA9-1D67F018775B@jabberwocky.com> <48AC2604.7010504@sixdemonbag.org> <20080820160439.GB16104@IUPUI.Edu> Message-ID: <48ACC211.3010002@sixdemonbag.org> Mark H. Wood wrote: > Hmmm. You'd have to ensure that every point within the coating on > every platter reaches the critical temperature (perhaps for a minimum > amount of time?). That sounds too uncertain when certain destruction > is required. The idea is that if, say, the CP of the ferromagnetics is 150C, you set the oven to 160C and leave it in there for a couple of hours. After a while, simple heat dispersion through the media would do the job for you. > The binder in the coating also has some critical temperatures and > might do Interesting Things before reaching the pigment's Curie > Point. In a sealed box, no less. I have no idea what will happen, > but maybe you should before trying the experiment. Like I said, I'm not going to be doing this experiment myself. It's the sort of thing which could be interesting, but which would need to be done in a safe environment. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 03:23:47 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:23:47 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48ACC3A3.8080400@sixdemonbag.org> Chris Walters wrote: > I hate to tell you this, but the F.B.I. Computer Forensics Laboratory has > successfully recovered data from a drive, where the platters were shot multiple > times with a shotgun. I have a friend who works in Interesting Places who tells me they once successfully put together a CD-R that had been put through a crosscut shredder. As he said, "never underestimate the power of OCD and superglue." > The only sure way to make sure no one can recover your data is to put it into a > blast furnace (this would be hot enough to melt the whole thing into a puddle, > and would cause substantial mixing between the ferro-magnetic alloy and the > titanium internal structure. Well, you don't have to slag it -- you only have to raise the temperature to the point where quantum mechanics says "okay, the magnetization has all gone bye-bye." But yes, the general point remains. The Gutmann shred is overrated (although, curiously, not by Gutmann, who has consistently advocated for its sane use), and total annihilation tends to be underrated. From cwal989 at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 03:30:22 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 21:30:22 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080820205109.GA9877@koshi.matrix> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48AC77D3.9030201@comcast.net> <48AC7CB0.1040804@bellsouth.net> <20080820205109.GA9877@koshi.matrix> Message-ID: <48ACC52E.4060101@comcast.net> Michel Messerschmidt wrote: > There is also the possibility to use encryption for *all* data on a > harddisk. If the key is stored somewhere else (e.g. in your mind or on > another disk), this may prevent data recovery on a similar level. Let's not confuse a *key* and a *passphrase*. This discussion came up on the Gentoo user forum not too long ago. If you just have a key and you store it on another disk (or flash drive, etc.), it would be possible for someone with access to you, your home, and your computer to find the key and decrypt the data. It would be a tad hard to memorize a key or set of them - if they are good, they are random. Passphrases are the most insecure form of data encryption. It *has* to either be something you can remember, or it has to be stored somewhere. Weak passphrases mean that your data can be decrypted with more simple attacks against your passphrase. Even it is is strong, and can not conceivably be cracked in, say 50 years, certain entities have methods of getting you to give them the passphrase. Oh, and one more thing. If you encrypt your whole disk, you will need something like a boot CD to be able to decrypt your drive and use it. Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 03:36:49 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 20:36:49 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" > being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it > without going to "extreme" solutions? No. > I have seen advices about using ccleaner, fileshredder, erase57, and > other tools like those For the most part, these tools exist to make people feel better about doing something to make their data unrecoverable. I am unaware of any evidence either that they are effective, or that they are any better than more commonplace solutions. For a new drive, pick up full volume encryption software. Don't let anything get written to the disk that's not encrypted. If someone wants to recover your information later, I wish them luck. For an existing drive, destroy it. Just how much you need to destroy it (a hammer to the drive platters, or thermiting the entire assembly) will depend on just how well-financed your opponents are. A while ago there was a decent article at _Computer World_, outlining data destruction for non-technical types. You may find it interesting. You can find it at the following (really long) URL, or just by going to Google and entering "site:www.computerworld.com Hope data destruction". http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=17&articleId=9016322&intsrc=hm_topic From kunalvshah at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 05:31:55 2008 From: kunalvshah at comcast.net (Kunal Shah) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:31:55 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Faramir wrote: >> lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" >> being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it >> without going to "extreme" solutions? > > No. > >> I have seen advices about using ccleaner, fileshredder, erase57, and >> other tools like those > > For the most part, these tools exist to make people feel better about > doing something to make their data unrecoverable. I am unaware of any > evidence either that they are effective, or that they are any better > than more commonplace solutions. > > For a new drive, pick up full volume encryption software. Don't let > anything get written to the disk that's not encrypted. If someone wants > to recover your information later, I wish them luck. > > For an existing drive, destroy it. Just how much you need to destroy it > (a hammer to the drive platters, or thermiting the entire assembly) will > depend on just how well-financed your opponents are. I wouldn't argue about methods discussed here to destroy the disk. However one consideration is, what data we are talking about. In my CISSP course, I was not taught to *destroy* data or protect it. I was just taught to make it so difficult for hacker to access it so that compare to the amount of time spent on recovery and resource it is worthless. All the methods discuss here, *putting it on blast furnace*, what data would *you* (not talking about matter of national security) be having on a disk that a hacker will get access to the millions of pieces of your hard drive, try to join them and get data out of it :-) > > A while ago there was a decent article at _Computer World_, outlining > data destruction for non-technical types. You may find it interesting. > You can find it at the following (really long) URL, or just by going to > Google and entering "site:www.computerworld.com Hope data destruction". > > http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=17&articleId=9016322&intsrc=hm_topic > > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 06:10:32 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:10:32 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> Kunal Shah wrote: > I wouldn't argue about methods discussed here to destroy the disk. > However one consideration is, what data we are talking about. In my > CISSP course, I was not taught to *destroy* data or protect it. I was > just taught to make it so difficult for hacker to access it so that > compare to the amount of time spent on recovery and resource it is > worthless. Sure you were. You were taught -- or should have been taught -- to discover the facts, and to develop your security implementation in light of both your policy and the facts. Fact: there is no effective and reliable way to nondestructively scrub data from a modern PRML/EPRML hard drive. (If you could definitely say "yes, I'm writing data to this particular spot on the hard drive", then you probably could; but that's kind of a fantasy.) Imagine you have a one sentence security policy: "hard drives must not leave traces of old files visible to forensic examiners." Imagine you have a one sentence security implementation: "hard drives will scrubbed every week." Well -- crap. You just discovered that your implementation is bogus, because it's at odds with the facts. You have to head this off at the pass. How do you do it? One option is to use full volume encryption. Okay, fine: your implementation, version 2.0, is "hard drives will use full volume encryption." Now you have to figure out how the policy changeover will work... which is to say, how to move from version 1.0 to version 2.0 in a way that will still uphold your security policy. You copy all the information from the old drives to the new drives. Congratulations: the new drives never need to be scrubbed. The old drives, however... you know people can make forensic recovery from them, because you know they can't be scrubbed. So after making sure that you have a correct copy of the data from the old drives, you thermite them, you shred the disk platters, you etch the platter surfaces with sulfuric acid... whatever. You utterly destroy them, putting the drive permanently beyond use. I can only speak for myself here, but I strongly suspect Werner, David, Mark and everyone else who's been chiming in will agree -- we are not talking about total destruction of hard drives as something you should want to do. We're talking about total destruction of hard drives as the _only realistic way to scrub data._ If you need your data scrubbed, you're going to have to nuke your hard drive. It's that simple. On your new hard drive, you should probably use some technique to make sure you never need to scrub data -- not unless you like thermiting hard drives. ObWarning: many of the techniques we've discussed for destroying hard drives are really quite dangerous. Thermite is _not_ a friendly chemical. Neither is sulfuric acid. Even an approach as low-tech as hammering the platters into oblivion can be dangerous -- see Werner's statement about all the shards that hit his safety glasses. Before destroying a hard drive, learn how to do it safely. From email at sven-radde.de Thu Aug 21 07:00:26 2008 From: email at sven-radde.de (Sven Radde) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:00:26 +0200 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1219294826.7045.10.camel@carbon> Hi! Am Mittwoch, den 20.08.2008, 21:09 -0400 schrieb Faramir: > The idea is > to make deleted files (not whole drives) unrecoverable to commercial > recovery software. The german IT-magazine c't did such a test quite some time ago (in 2003, IIRC) and found that a data recovery firm was unable to recover anything overwritten with one single pass of zeroes. Naturally, the files overwritten with multiple random/special passes etc. were equally unrecoverable. cu, Sven From cwal989 at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 07:45:48 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:45:48 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I can only speak for myself here, but I strongly suspect Werner, David, > Mark and everyone else who's been chiming in will agree -- we are not > talking about total destruction of hard drives as something you should > want to do. > > We're talking about total destruction of hard drives as the _only > realistic way to scrub data._ I agree, this is a purely theoretical discussion for me. I don't have such sensitive data on my drives to want to nuke them. > ObWarning: many of the techniques we've discussed for destroying hard > drives are really quite dangerous. Thermite is _not_ a friendly > chemical. Neither is sulfuric acid. Even an approach as low-tech as > hammering the platters into oblivion can be dangerous -- see Werner's > statement about all the shards that hit his safety glasses. Before > destroying a hard drive, learn how to do it safely. Ah, yes. The obligatory warning. One method that I suggested would get the gold star for dangerous, foolhardy, do not do: Placing your hard drive in the core of an active nuclear reactor. Acid is not safe either - I started off in chemistry... I would sooner use 30 M hydrochloric acid than sulfuric acid - why? It is easier to obtain - the problem is disposing of what is left, as if you pour it down the drain, it will start corroding your sink (unless it is ceramic), and your pipes. Not a pretty picture. Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From atom at smasher.org Thu Aug 21 06:27:01 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:27:01 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > ObWarning: many of the techniques we've discussed for destroying hard > drives are really quite dangerous. Thermite is _not_ a friendly > chemical. Neither is sulfuric acid. Even an approach as low-tech as > hammering the platters into oblivion can be dangerous -- see Werner's > statement about all the shards that hit his safety glasses. Before > destroying a hard drive, learn how to do it safely. =============== When Hard Drives Attack http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V24uefUXb6w also check out the Related Videos. on the same topic, i was also thinking that cooking a HD above the platters' CP would also require adequate ventilation, and may render an oven not usable for food. -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "In a way, risking climate change is even more frightening than playing Russian roulette... but with the pistol pointed at the head of ones child..." -- Stephen J. Decanio, The Economics of Climate Change From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 08:34:25 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 01:34:25 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48AD0C71.2060001@sixdemonbag.org> Chris Walters wrote: > Ah, yes. The obligatory warning. One method that I suggested would get the > gold star for dangerous, foolhardy, do not do: Placing your hard drive in the > core of an active nuclear reactor. Better than some ideas I've heard. (E.g., use ClF3 to scour the platters. Only problem: ClF3 will almost certainly not scour the materials... but it will probably cause you to oxidize quite nicely. Along with causing the oxygen in the air to oxidize. And the fire extinguishers. And the sand buckets. And...) Strangely, ClF3 is used pretty commonly in the computer industry, particularly in fab plants. This is one reason among many why I'm so glad I'm not an EE. From atom at smasher.org Thu Aug 21 03:54:19 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 13:54:19 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <20080821015421.10125.qmail@smasher.org> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Faramir wrote: >> lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" >> being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it without >> going to "extreme" solutions? > > No. ============== i'll play the other side... depending on your OS, FS, and choice of file-shredder: yes. you can make it impossible for anyone without an electron microscope to get you deleted data. but... are there copies of it in swap? temp copies by other names? that's an area where disk encryption wins. also check out thc's sfill. to see for yourself, make a file, delete it the usual way, and try to find it with foremost (or similar). chances are very high that you will find what you're looking for. then, with another file, user a file-shredder and look again with your favorite data recovery tool. can you find the file? repeat until you're happy with the results. a more in-depth analysis of the disk would require physical disassembly of the disk and tools that most home users just don't have access to. so, if you put a good effort into finding shredded files with software and can't do it, then it's reasonably safe to say that no one else can, either. > For an existing drive, destroy it. Just how much you need to destroy it > (a hammer to the drive platters, or thermiting the entire assembly) will > depend on just how well-financed your opponents are. ============= or how many layers of foil your hat is lined with ;) -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." -- G. B. Shaw From jingz.bit at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 11:19:26 2008 From: jingz.bit at gmail.com (=?GB2312?B?1cW+uA==?=) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:19:26 +0800 Subject: What does the message mean while encrypting? Message-ID: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> Hi I would encrypt one file by gpg. After I execute following command line: C:\WP_ECL~1.4\TESTCE~1>gpg -r Luna --encrypt test.txt Following message pops up: gpg: 07421961: There is no assurance this key belongs to the named user pub 1024g/07421961 2008-07-26 Li Meng (Luna) Primary key fingerprint: E36D 817B 1A23 17DB E93B F0F3 5AE5 3D90 0F89 CA08 Subkey fingerprint: AB25 B0F5 5E5F 8EC2 9C35 2557 4382 52A0 0742 1961 It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named in the user ID. If you *really* know what you are doing, you may answer the next question with yes. Use this key anyway? (y/N) Now I have confirm a 'y' to complete the processing. How can I execute the command without a confirm like above? thanks. -- Best Regards -------------------------- Zhang Jing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ml at mareichelt.de Thu Aug 21 11:49:12 2008 From: ml at mareichelt.de (markus reichelt) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:49:12 +0200 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> Message-ID: <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> * Chris Walters wrote: > I would sooner use 30 M hydrochloric acid than sulfuric acid 30M? I guess not. Industrial grade conc. hydrochloric acid is about 12M max -- left blank, right bald -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 11:57:20 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 04:57:20 -0500 Subject: What does the message mean while encrypting? In-Reply-To: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> References: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AD3C00.2060100@sixdemonbag.org> ?? wrote: > How can I execute the command without a confirm like above? Add "--trust-model always" to the beginning of your command line. E.g., "gpg --trust-model-always ...", followed by everything else. The warning is worth listening to, however. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 13:08:44 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 06:08:44 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> Message-ID: <48AD4CBC.2000803@sixdemonbag.org> markus reichelt wrote: > 30M? I guess not. Industrial grade conc. hydrochloric acid is about > 12M max I am no chemist, but I would not be at all shocked to find that well-stocked research laboratories have supplies on hand that you or I would consider ridiculous. As an example, a few weeks ago I was talking to a fellow graduate student here. He was talking about the fun he'd recently had with fluoroantimonic acid. This stuff will protanate _methane_. Of course, Stephen characterized it as "a lot of fun" and "we should get you into the lab sometime, Rob!", at which point I realized that I kind of liked not being dissolved... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoroantimonic_acid ("I will not screw with the chemistry grad students, for I am two-thirds water, and thus am an ambulatory supply of useful if impure solvent.") From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Thu Aug 21 13:33:31 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 07:33:31 -0400 Subject: What does the message mean while encrypting? In-Reply-To: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> References: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AD528B.8030808@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 ?? wrote: > It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named > in the user ID. If you *really* know what you are doing, > you may answer the next question with yes. Try adding the following line to gpg.conf trust-model always or You can place a Local Signature on the Key. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Thursday 21 Aug 2008, 07:33 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4815: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIrVKIAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPEEEH/2++TVChU8VR3A+RMfsE8iFN B7smBpcN36AL0IGAOOt3vWSzRxkzD0kNEq0IoTUNcJJsVaUhC7FU9puM117mcEKJ 1qa9GAres7ny+9rNPylLqPnqxOep0REdXEDFfu5Ga2yCkMHNDIiGSDDPv3laGbnb S0rjJafLPtC9Vpy08bbDIxgOPdzF9Qcbyop85YS64etRmj+i5PCCYvIVRAhVfk3g hmzVa01GKJfOTyJHxvvpEH8SJEZZaY+FSrMzKvNKVseXAwWzhdEb9PWXZ9IHroXP noCSWSdhvMayY2rhdyiA/uznX548FmbOCpHKfB4up8YZ4V+YzJOo67qBItFOp0k= =GZHb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cwal989 at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 15:31:47 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:31:47 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> Message-ID: <48AD6E43.8050307@comcast.net> markus reichelt wrote: > * Chris Walters wrote: > >> I would sooner use 30 M hydrochloric acid than sulfuric acid > > 30M? I guess not. Industrial grade conc. hydrochloric acid is about > 12M max I would guess that you've never taken an advance university chemistry course. One of the experiments we had to do was to take a set amount of 30 M hydrochloric acid and dilute it so that is was 6 M. It does exist - I had to work with it. Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From cwal989 at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 15:43:23 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:43:23 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... / Exploring new vistas of "Off Topic" In-Reply-To: <48AD4CBC.2000803@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <48AD010C.8010007@comcast.net> <20080821094912.GA4349@tatooine.rebelbase.local> <48AD4CBC.2000803@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48AD70FB.5070702@comcast.net> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I am no chemist, but I would not be at all shocked to find that > well-stocked research laboratories have supplies on hand that you or I > would consider ridiculous. > > As an example, a few weeks ago I was talking to a fellow graduate > student here. He was talking about the fun he'd recently had with > fluoroantimonic acid. This stuff will protanate _methane_. Of course, > Stephen characterized it as "a lot of fun" and "we should get you into > the lab sometime, Rob!", at which point I realized that I kind of liked > not being dissolved... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoroantimonic_acid > > ("I will not screw with the chemistry grad students, for I am two-thirds > water, and thus am an ambulatory supply of useful if impure solvent.") LOL! I think most here would agree that they like the idea of not being dissolved. That is why most people stay away from chemists, especially ones who fit the mold of "mad scientist"... Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From kunalvshah at comcast.net Thu Aug 21 15:55:33 2008 From: kunalvshah at comcast.net (Kunal Shah) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 09:55:33 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> Message-ID: <48AD73D5.8070001@comcast.net> Atom Smasher wrote: > On Wed, 20 Aug 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > >> ObWarning: many of the techniques we've discussed for destroying hard >> drives are really quite dangerous. Thermite is _not_ a friendly >> chemical. Neither is sulfuric acid. Even an approach as low-tech as >> hammering the platters into oblivion can be dangerous -- see Werner's >> statement about all the shards that hit his safety glasses. Before >> destroying a hard drive, learn how to do it safely. > =============== > > When Hard Drives Attack > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V24uefUXb6w > > also check out the Related Videos. > > on the same topic, i was also thinking that cooking a HD above the > platters' CP would also require adequate ventilation, and may render an > oven not usable for food. > > How about dropping HD in Lava from some exploding mountain? From helge.gudmundsen at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 17:14:37 2008 From: helge.gudmundsen at gmail.com (Helge Gudmundsen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:14:37 +0100 Subject: Securely delete files... (going WAAAY off topic) Message-ID: <8a82135a0808210814o54488468r9ddce7f56c5eba5e@mail.gmail.com> > How about dropping HD in Lava from some exploding mountain? > Ahh, the climactic scene from the movie "Lord of the disks" where Frodo BaGPGins drops the platters in Mount Doom. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chd at chud.net Thu Aug 21 19:34:45 2008 From: chd at chud.net (Chris De Young) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 10:34:45 -0700 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Faramir wrote: >> lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" >> being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it >> without going to "extreme" solutions? > > No. It's not clear to me why this is the case; it seems to me that if you're only worried about access that uses the drive's own process for getting bits off the platters, then a simple overwrite (and only once) would be sufficient. If you're going to try to read the drive using the drive's own read/write heads and firmware (which all of these software applications do, right?), the most recently written bits are the only ones that should be available. That doesn't protect you from someone who wants to take apart the drive in a clean room and spend lots of money reading it other ways, of course, but that seemed out of bounds from the original question. -C -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 250 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Thu Aug 21 20:38:07 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 14:38:07 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <5061A514-AE64-4960-BEDE-7CD92CFF422D@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 21, 2008, at 12:10 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I can only speak for myself here, but I strongly suspect Werner, > David, > Mark and everyone else who's been chiming in will agree -- we are not > talking about total destruction of hard drives as something you should > want to do. > > We're talking about total destruction of hard drives as the _only > realistic way to scrub data._ I more or less agree with this, except I'd add the qualifier that it's the only realistic way to completely scrub data with a perfect (or close enough to perfect such that any difference is irrelevant) guarantee of success. Basically I'm adding a "perfect" and a "guarantee". There are other ways to scrub data, and whether they are effective in practice depends on who the adversary is. An adversary who can merely download and run an undelete program is very different from an adversary with an entire computer forensics laboratory (and budget to match), and there are more people with undelete programs out there then there are forensics labs. I can't speak for the dozen or more shred programs that can be downloaded from the net. (I'm sure many of them are garbage - the trick is knowing which ones). For many adversaries, a good shred program is effective. Just because it isn't effective against all adversaries, doesn't mean that it isn't effective against some. All that said, I don't really use disk or file shredding software. When I buy a drive, I use it until it dies and then I destroy it. Disks are cheap and last for years. Plus, shredding a multi-hundred- gigabyte disk can take days and hitting a drive with a hammer takes minutes. Plus again, given that I use the drive until it dies, it may not even be possible to shred. David From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 21:56:27 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:56:27 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> Message-ID: <48ADC86B.1020701@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Atom Smasher escribi?: > on the same topic, i was also thinking that cooking a HD above the > platters' CP would also require adequate ventilation, and may render an > oven not usable for food. Well, about CP, I found M.I.T. - Walter Lewin - Ferromagnetic Curie Point lecture (take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8ZHQQUusGo ) I figure we can disassemble the hdd case to expose the platters, and then use a flame torch to heat them, without having to use mom's oven (by the way, iron's CP is at 1043 ?K, that is 770 ?C or 926.3 ?F, a bit too much for mom's oven). If the professor survived to that demo, maybe can be possible to do it ourselves (but maybe the platters have some coating that will produce toxic smoke...). Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIrchrAAoJEMV4f6PvczxANmQH/2AU/0YMsIvUgqcoemr4FxHW NOZbppGzvn6gIFqnwBw5lJ0Mx4tmwlPHVQ6vU0tFN1PFEhQiW3wA9p7wZ3u5NBM6 5Ir98xhm2GrEooJWpq2KOZgqdk9XVFaA513jA4/mRwk3wXQG87aXF78jmJidjvOV nNTq5db5Nx9PR51xUv1CsEzEzYXsPwv4t8Cf7y9m2TR3jhsvOoVZ7iMLysCc5WJ9 fOpd1lhsLbYLQhvvbKL3sShNxadpHIX88u2omwJiQsx96ZbJG5DGH9+ZZ427N0LV aA9vIxdXeIDnhI4Jc0S+fjSYKS8a+a3YUAkelucp4uR6myaQBl9+3DVgwdcCwoA= =z1Pz -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 22:19:11 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:19:11 -0400 Subject: What does the message mean while encrypting? In-Reply-To: <48AD528B.8030808@bellsouth.net> References: <4257be120808210219la3aa097s6016f1eb2dd38724@mail.gmail.com> <48AD528B.8030808@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48ADCDBF.5050705@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 John W. Moore III escribi?: > ?? wrote: > >> It is NOT certain that the key belongs to the person named >> in the user ID. If you *really* know what you are doing, >> you may answer the next question with yes. > > Try adding the following line to gpg.conf > > trust-model always > > or You can place a Local Signature on the Key. I figure the local signature is a better option, since it won't change the "safe" behaviour of gpg... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIrc2/AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAP9oH/jbo6HLDYMNC2Ld27ERGLaiy hQwTPEeJZVxiwDn0MWR9aXuH6+BS0NwyD5rnd4z47HY2p/Y0m7zcIBrxPyxrBYaE +ogNItZhgv+FfmqjsFMv90jH+jdWaGbM1iwkNtkJWEgoQzIguNCxSJPJD6FJ1jZU 3tcL3a7pNwGpMyXgXUhefPpUGcM6wLMiZqaxnvK4mECnGWWECjM9Lh8RF67sfdBW IyXALq7E1eEEWH67dr7eGM8dNRh4MTVwmDTF8rmbQjdlRujkjfPa6osX9d2TQElD 4P10Mh3omWCz6bkiPREpBjxlbeayDe+HeM0ppv+yCaOuI3vphghVcYEvLtnn6VI= =a08W -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 22:32:49 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:32:49 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AD73D5.8070001@comcast.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> <48AD73D5.8070001@comcast.net> Message-ID: <48ADD0F1.6040501@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Kunal Shah escribi?: > How about dropping HD in Lava from some exploding mountain? I think maybe it would be easier to ask government to allow you to include the hdd between the seized weapons to be destroyed... or maybe to talk with a company in the recycle business... sure, if you are a person, it can be hard to do, but if you are some kind of institution, like a bank, maybe you make it. Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIrdDxAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAF6MH/2rjQg6CSN0IACcTwquZwvER +q85g+E9f4HUfKD/SA2bwUmjg4/8WRumjf5Q5f/ys+XZn71anZIB7UYR6SyHhYKd JQza42OW3EOYoVuuw5juM/DlIrbX/zUtvXpY3az/dzYdJAaW7UJgH1Wpyuq0W2K7 aT04+t2jGo7D33oKMo4atY5k3JXaOlRxq5qTR22DgRhcCPCUwKSykuFvwxnn52NX 8i5qxlKJ4iBqiQtLf5pxg0p8ntS4ZuAA28b6iqc40t4YSJsqv4HxkhTPsxly//69 1rjr0+NFmpwC+0neWm1PFLVJq+35rcnnysAEHo8C4DkkNf/R+FIU5UanGm8KF64= =Eygi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 22:54:57 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 15:54:57 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ADD0F1.6040501@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> <48AD73D5.8070001@comcast.net> <48ADD0F1.6040501@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48ADD621.1000808@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > I think maybe it would be easier to ask government to allow you to > include the hdd between the seized weapons to be destroyed... There are a ton of very efficient ways to destroy hard drives which everyday users can do. There's no need to have other people do it for you -- after all, how can you be sure they'll do it at all? If you want your hard drive destroyed, you really have no choice but to do it yourself. Hammering the drive platters, grinding off the drive surfaces, bulk degaussers, powerful acids and thermite are all cheap and effective, albeit all of them requiring some knowledge of safety precautions. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Aug 21 23:07:45 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:07:45 -0500 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ADC86B.1020701@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ACE1AB.5030800@comcast.net> <48ACEAB8.6040903@sixdemonbag.org> <20080821042703.89382.qmail@smasher.org> <48ADC86B.1020701@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48ADD921.7040004@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > (by the way, iron's CP is at 1043 ?K, that is 770 ?C or 926.3 ?F, a bit > too much for mom's oven). If the professor survived to that demo, maybe Hard drives don't use iron. They use rare earth oxides. Much, much lower CP. From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 21 23:08:41 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 17:08:41 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> Message-ID: <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Chris De Young escribi?: > Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Faramir wrote: >>> lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data back" >>> being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it >>> without going to "extreme" solutions? >> No. > > It's not clear to me why this is the case; it seems to me that if you're only > worried about access that uses the drive's own process for getting bits off the > platters, then a simple overwrite (and only once) would be sufficient. If you're > going to try to read the drive using the drive's own read/write heads and > firmware (which all of these software applications do, right?), the most > recently written bits are the only ones that should be available. That's is what I am no longer sure I can do, I mean, it seems I can tell the disk "overwrite that file", and the disk can write somewhere else, not over the sectors containing the file I want to "destroy" (at least, that is what I have understood from this thread). But maybe there is some app capable of telling the disk "write this random patter right over the place where the original file is, and not in other places". Or maybe if I fill the whole disk with zeroes, it MUST overwrite the file... since I would be using the full capacity of the disk, there would not be "other places" available... but this was already discarded, and I didn't really understand why it is not reliable in the "avoid commercial software utilities for info recovery" context. > That doesn't protect you from someone who wants to take apart the drive in a > clean room and spend lots of money reading it other ways, of course, but that > seemed out of bounds from the original question. Well, the original question did not include any context (and I was not the one making the question), so it was very reasonable to talk about physical destruction of the drive, but since I am sure some people is not concerned about NSA or KGB trying to recover the info, just about low budget people, I added that context... something like "I want to be sure my room mate won't be able to recover the picture portraying my girlfriend naked, which I just deleted" (it is just an imaginary context, I don't have that problem). Best Regards P.S: about "Ahh, the climactic scene from the movie "Lord of the disks" where Frodo BaGPGins drops the platters in Mount Doom.", I figure I would have to jump to the lava to save "my precious" info XD -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIrdlZAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAtqwH/RqDFAUcqrs5jqdc/pGqm3kk xT0KrrE/4iAebsMii9Jzb5RiFyO1VLbkpGzUw3lxQoT3bG656rA+qSRmjAGatAVU FWxFYToXBv0kxtHXnRQbPZn/6cDBxq76RJiZghq812KuHPEaIckM5Z9qmQ0XvxNq z45nE3FV/BSzVSPt/sO0uRcSvSgH65w+CVVhDAJu9Bw0qedmPPnLF/r2qfWPVYPe JZFBIHOWMlCqqY/9GjPz5cnA3oCqQPrFkWWXrrd+dj7pie5X4HOle44gLu9sU/FV H1LhlmWQtSRfQ1fsH4zkrKE2q+zCzY/TQXDniQ/cxySPoaWFmZruUQU04RLry7Q= =IbHZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From atom at smasher.org Fri Aug 22 00:13:56 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:13:56 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20080821221358.37409.qmail@smasher.org> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, Faramir wrote: > That's is what I am no longer sure I can do, I mean, it seems I can > tell the disk "overwrite that file", and the disk can write somewhere > else, not over the sectors containing the file I want to "destroy" (at > least, that is what I have understood from this thread). But maybe there > is some app capable of telling the disk "write this random patter right > over the place where the original file is, and not in other places". =================== that's basically what sfill (part of the srm package from thc) does, per partition. the other way of doing basically the same thing: dd if=/dev/urandom of=/partition/tmp-file ; rm /partition/tmp-file although sfill also scrubs the inodes, IIRC. that would make it hard to figure out the [former] names and [former] locations of the scrubbed files. repeat as necessary. of course that's no substitute for strapping high explosives to the hard drive and blasting pieces of the platter into orbit, which it seems some people on this list would consider the only acceptable solution ;) -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "Everything that can be invented has been invented." -- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899 From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 22 04:54:13 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:54:13 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <20080821221358.37409.qmail@smasher.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <20080821221358.37409.qmail@smasher.org> Message-ID: <48AE2A55.8070100@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Atom Smasher escribi?: > that's basically what sfill (part of the srm package from thc) does, per > partition. the other way of doing basically the same thing: > dd if=/dev/urandom of=/partition/tmp-file ; rm /partition/tmp-file Now, a lot of coffee cups latter, I am thinking maybe it is harder to "securely" delete a single file than a whole disk or partition... since with just 1 file, you must overwrite the place where the file is located, and if we want to erase the whole disk, it should be matter of filling it up to full capacity with some debris data... there is no need to "aim" to a specific spot... > of course that's no substitute for strapping high explosives to the hard > drive and blasting pieces of the platter into orbit, which it seems some > people on this list would consider the only acceptable solution ;) Sure! I know forensics labs can do things amazing (or they are supposed to be able to do them... once I read they can recover files overwritten 7 times, without much problems, and after that, it becomes more difficult, but not impossible). I still think the flame torch can be the desired solution... or... we can always drop the pieces to a river... but maybe Deagol can find them... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIripVAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAARgH/0lhSYod/TN84Vhe1eGvBOoi RKXnbNtQooSqjrir0jMHytWOgkMXoXRFJ5cYYtx8mFUM0G7I+L7ZLpSs1vvElTwq Frweq3R5mSVYuB2jfA8BNVVcAGocJW7SVHTYJrTEqT10he5JyfgBL/61wk5immXo 9T8Myk4n0TZQMehbL5atHecch0Rc49kAaHDiCMXWuWD2o+Mgp16Kx5J5UMdQjqSK 7cjJM0o2Xq87Owbw9w/07+V4VysNyt4LCZ5ygSbg8+zdOiFKFC6M4cwb3r7UqZLq HrJzXsSU68N4K8g1K7ADndWfju9/vlKjO22Bhe7eElFcMl7DSP9FyXIsOvDzBK0= =yRoE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 22 05:12:05 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:12:05 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> Message-ID: <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 21, 2008, at 5:08 PM, Faramir wrote: > Chris De Young escribi?: >> Robert J. Hansen wrote: >>> Faramir wrote: >>>> lets say I just want to avoid recovery software like "get data >>>> back" >>>> being able to recover a file. Is there a reliable way to do it >>>> without going to "extreme" solutions? >>> No. >> >> It's not clear to me why this is the case; it seems to me that if >> you're only >> worried about access that uses the drive's own process for getting >> bits off the >> platters, then a simple overwrite (and only once) would be >> sufficient. If you're >> going to try to read the drive using the drive's own read/write >> heads and >> firmware (which all of these software applications do, right?), the >> most >> recently written bits are the only ones that should be available. > > That's is what I am no longer sure I can do, I mean, it seems I can > tell the disk "overwrite that file", and the disk can write somewhere > else, not over the sectors containing the file I want to "destroy" (at > least, that is what I have understood from this thread). But maybe > there > is some app capable of telling the disk "write this random patter > right > over the place where the original file is, and not in other places". That's exactly the problem - given modern disks, and modern filesystems, there is not a perfect guarantee that you'll hit the same disk blocks that the original file landed on. The disk could invisibly remap a block out from under you at any time (it does this automatically when the disk firmware detects a bad block), the filesystem could be doing journaling games, etc, etc. A program running on the computer the disk is attached to can't really do much about disk block remapping since it doesn't see this. It always asks for (for example) block 100. If the file was written when block 100 pointed to block 100, but by the time the overwrite happens, block 100 has become 12345, then the computer doesn't know it needs to overwrite both 100 and 12345 to get all traces of the file. > Well, the original question did not include any context (and I was > not the one making the question), so it was very reasonable to talk > about physical destruction of the drive, but since I am sure some > people > is not concerned about NSA or KGB trying to recover the info, just > about > low budget people, I added that context... something like "I want to > be > sure my room mate won't be able to recover the picture portraying my > girlfriend naked, which I just deleted" (it is just an imaginary > context, I don't have that problem). Let's simplify things this way: you have regular people and forensics lab people. You have single file shredding, and whole-disk shredding. Regular people only have access to the disk that a computer can have. That is, they are reading the disk using the disk interface. Forensics labs can do things like remove the platters and go for the electron microscopes. Single file shredding is just that - you pick a particular file on the disk and shred it. Other files are not affected. Whole-disk shredding shreds the whole disk at a block level, and the entire contents of the disk are lost. The disk would need a reformat / re-mkfs before using it again. This is a simplification, of course, but it's a reasonable one. We've discussed forensics lab stuff elsewhere in this thread, so I'll skip it here. That leaves only two cases: Regular people + single file shred: This may or may not be safe depending on whether the filesystem you are using overwrites in place or not. Many modern filesystems (Reiser, XFS) do not necessarily overwrite in place. More primitive filesystems (like the FAT FS that is used on many external disks) do overwrite in place. Linux systems most commonly use ext3, and that may or may not overwrite in place, depending on how it is configured. Then there is the fact that many programs create temp files here and there which wouldn't get shredded. On top of that there is the fact that many programs save files in ways that can defeat shredding. Bottom line: it can be safe, but you have to really know details of your OS and what programs generate the files you want to shred. In practice, it's a little iffy. Regular people + whole disk: This is pretty safe. The disk might be doing magic underneath you, but given that the attacker is only able to read the disk via the disk interface itself, the magic is not visible (or rather, it is equally visible or invisible to both you and your attacker). Any temp files are blown away just like everything else is. Bottom line is, yes, you can protect yourself from your roommate with shredding (assuming your roommate doesn't work for a computer forensics lab). Of course, you'd better make sure your shred program is a good one. I've seen some pretty silly bugs that make some of them not actually protect you particularly well... David From jeandavid8 at verizon.net Fri Aug 22 13:50:26 2008 From: jeandavid8 at verizon.net (Jean-David Beyer) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:50:26 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 David Shaw wrote (in part): > That's exactly the problem - given modern disks, and modern > filesystems, there is not a perfect guarantee that you'll hit the same > disk blocks that the original file landed on. The disk could > invisibly remap a block out from under you at any time (it does this > automatically when the disk firmware detects a bad block), the > filesystem could be doing journaling games, etc, etc. A program > running on the computer the disk is attached to can't really do much > about disk block remapping since it doesn't see this. It always asks > for (for example) block 100. If the file was written when block 100 > pointed to block 100, but by the time the overwrite happens, block 100 > has become 12345, then the computer doesn't know it needs to overwrite > both 100 and 12345 to get all traces of the file. > To make matters worse, block 100 in your example may have already been allocated to another process and it may have already written by that other process, so the computer better not overwrite it multiple times to hide all traces of the older data. - -- .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642. /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939. /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org ^^-^^ 07:40:01 up 15 days, 13:46, 4 users, load average: 4.54, 4.28, 4.37 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with CentOS - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIrqgCPtu2XpovyZoRAjfdAJ4l5Lx5kNZikfe1p+jk1OF8v4UTwACg08rI 7XUxC1ICpb/yJVQe9b8i4kE= =bM+I -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From cwal989 at comcast.net Fri Aug 22 14:01:11 2008 From: cwal989 at comcast.net (Chris Walters) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:01:11 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <48AEAA87.9090301@comcast.net> David Shaw wrote: > Let's simplify things this way: you have regular people and forensics > lab people. You have single file shredding, and whole-disk shredding. > Regular people only have access to the disk that a computer can have. > That is, they are reading the disk using the disk interface. Forensics > labs can do things like remove the platters and go for the electron > microscopes. Single file shredding is just that - you pick a particular > file on the disk and shred it. Other files are not affected. > Whole-disk shredding shreds the whole disk at a block level, and the > entire contents of the disk are lost. The disk would need a reformat / > re-mkfs before using it again. This is a simplification, of course, but > it's a reasonable one. > > Regular people + single file shred: This may or may not be safe > depending on whether the filesystem you are using overwrites in place or > not. Many modern filesystems (Reiser, XFS) do not necessarily overwrite > in place. More primitive filesystems (like the FAT FS that is used on > many external disks) do overwrite in place. Linux systems most commonly > use ext3, and that may or may not overwrite in place, depending on how > it is configured. Then there is the fact that many programs create temp > Regular people + whole disk: This is pretty safe. The disk might be > doing magic underneath you, but given that the attacker is only able to > read the disk via the disk interface itself, the magic is not visible > (or rather, it is equally visible or invisible to both you and your > attacker). Any temp files are blown away just like everything else is. > > Bottom line is, yes, you can protect yourself from your roommate with > shredding (assuming your roommate doesn't work for a computer forensics > lab). Of course, you'd better make sure your shred program is a good > one. I've seen some pretty silly bugs that make some of them not > actually protect you particularly well... > > David As interesting as this discussion has become, I think it is time to let it end. If anyone knows of any *good* shred utilities, I'd be interested. I have one final comment, XFS, Reiser and JFS are all journaling filesystems, and shredding files on such systems is useless, since the file or a large part of it can be recovered from the journal. And if your data are so sensitive that you need to totally destroy the disk to rid yourself of it, maybe you should rethink what you are storing, eh? Anyhow, I'd rather talk about gnupg. The part of this thread talking about whole disk encryption is actually closer to that topic than most of the other things I've seen and said, since loop-aes can use gpg-encrypted passphrases and that is one way to encrypt files and partitions on Linux-based systems. Regards, Chris -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From shavital at mac.com Fri Aug 22 15:21:22 2008 From: shavital at mac.com (Charly Avital) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:21:22 -0400 Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> Message-ID: <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> Hi, "Quantum encryption is here, but the laws of physics can do much more than protect privacy". This is a magazine feature, I don't know how accurate it might be; if someone cares to comment, I'll be grateful. Charly From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Aug 22 15:42:04 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:42:04 -0500 Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> Message-ID: <48AEC22C.5020306@sixdemonbag.org> Charly Avital wrote: > "Quantum encryption is here, but the laws of physics can do much more > than protect privacy". There are no quantum encryption algorithms. None. What we have is quantum key exchange, where you use a handful of qubits to negotiate a random session key in a way that an eavesdropped cannot listen in on the transaction. If you're willing to burn up a _lot_ of qubits, you can turn this into the one-time pad. But either way, all you're doing is transferring key material in a way that can't be eavesdropped upon -- nothing more. From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Fri Aug 22 15:49:32 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:49:32 +0200 (CEST) Subject: gpg-agent ignores preset passphrase Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > I tried to use "preset passphrase" feature but it does not work. > Log shows that gpg-agent seemingly receives passphrase but later > when agent should use the cached passphrase it ask for it again > from pinentry. > 2008-07-14 11:10:00 gpg-agent[30442] DBG: agent_get_cache `xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'... > 2008-07-14 11:10:00 gpg-agent[30442] DBG: ... miss > 2008-07-14 11:10:00 gpg-agent[30442] starting a new PIN Entry > 2008-07-14 11:10:00 gpg-agent[30442] DBG: connection to PIN entry established (Full text in the archive http://www.mail-archive.com/gnupg-users at gnupg.org/msg08722.html) Now I started to debug gpg-agent. I don't know why but now there is a minor difference in the log output: gpg-agent[21153.7] DBG: <- PRESET_PASSPHRASE xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -1 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-08-22 15:26:53 gpg-agent[21153] DBG: agent_put_cache `xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx' requested ttl=-1 mode=1 gpg-agent[21153.7] DBG: -> OK gpg-agent[21153.7] DBG: <- [EOF] ... 2008-08-22 15:27:21 gpg-agent[21153] DBG: agent_get_cache `xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'... 2008-08-22 15:27:21 gpg-agent[21153] DBG: ... hit 2008-08-22 15:27:21 gpg-agent[21153] starting a new PIN Entry I.e. "miss" is changed to "hit". However a new pinentry popup window appears yet. Putting some additional log_debug() statements in the code I found that the critical part is function findkey.c:unprotect(). It retrieves cached passphrase successfully but a few lines below it calls agent_askpin() unconditionally. Why does this happen? Could somebody explain me? And how should I use gpg-preset-passphrase? Thanks Gabor -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76 iD8DBQFIrsPzd2oiOrtquzgRAuTTAJ95WySkxvgUDrdpWRv+I3DjNFuLWwCfTFoI rW/BQsteoObJ4Kh2Uk1NG2c= =JJWU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 22 16:45:25 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 10:45:25 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <48AE2A55.8070100@gmail.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <20080821221358.37409.qmail@smasher.org> <48AE2A55.8070100@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Aug 21, 2008, at 10:54 PM, Faramir wrote: > Atom Smasher escribi?: > >> that's basically what sfill (part of the srm package from thc) >> does, per >> partition. the other way of doing basically the same thing: >> dd if=/dev/urandom of=/partition/tmp-file ; rm /partition/tmp-file > > Now, a lot of coffee cups latter, I am thinking maybe it is harder to > "securely" delete a single file than a whole disk or partition... > since > with just 1 file, you must overwrite the place where the file is > located, and if we want to erase the whole disk, it should be matter > of > filling it up to full capacity with some debris data... there is no > need > to "aim" to a specific spot... Exactly right. Shredding a whole disk is like using a hammer. Shredding a single file involves a scalpel. It's a lot harder - not impossible, but harder - to use a scalpel. David From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Fri Aug 22 20:38:37 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 14:38:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, David Shaw wrote: . . . > whether the filesystem you are using overwrites in place or not. Many modern > filesystems (Reiser, XFS) do not necessarily overwrite in place. More > primitive filesystems (like the FAT FS that is used on many external disks) > do overwrite in place. Linux systems most commonly use ext3, and that may or > may not overwrite in place, depending on how it is configured. Then there is > the fact that many programs create temp files here and there which wouldn't > get shredded. On top of that there is the fact that many programs save files > in ways that can defeat shredding. Bottom line: it can be safe, but you have . . . Might anyone have any quick info about this issue for MacOS? From, say, OS10.2's HFS+, through OS10.3 and 10.4's journaled HFS+, to whatever the current OS10.5 does if different? From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Fri Aug 22 21:02:57 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 15:02:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AEC22C.5020306@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> <48AEC22C.5020306@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote: . . . > There are no quantum encryption algorithms. None. > > What we have is quantum key exchange, where you use a handful of qubits > to negotiate a random session key in a way that an eavesdropped cannot > listen in on the transaction. If you're willing to burn up a _lot_ of . . . (Without taking any position on the legitimacy or not of any particular part of the quantum encryption field) Wouldn't the claim be: "cannot listen in on such a transaction between Alice and Bob without affecting the transaction in a detectable way"? From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Fri Aug 22 23:10:28 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:10:28 -0400 (EDT) Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Charly Avital wrote: . . . > This is a magazine feature, I don't know how accurate it might be; if > someone cares to comment, I'll be grateful. > > Here's a url for what seems to be the technical description, at arXiv.org (found by search there): What's available via the link at the online ScienceNews article seems to require a login. From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 22 23:29:40 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:29:40 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <634F2DD2-5BAA-4BBC-82C9-8B961EFF54E9@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 22, 2008, at 2:38 PM, reynt0 wrote: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, David Shaw wrote: > . . . >> whether the filesystem you are using overwrites in place or not. >> Many modern filesystems (Reiser, XFS) do not necessarily overwrite >> in place. More primitive filesystems (like the FAT FS that is used >> on many external disks) do overwrite in place. Linux systems most >> commonly use ext3, and that may or may not overwrite in place, >> depending on how it is configured. Then there is the fact that >> many programs create temp files here and there which wouldn't get >> shredded. On top of that there is the fact that many programs save >> files in ways that can defeat shredding. Bottom line: it can be >> safe, but you have > . . . > > Might anyone have any quick info about this issue for MacOS? > From, say, OS10.2's HFS+, through OS10.3 and 10.4's journaled > HFS+, to whatever the current OS10.5 does if different? OS X is an interesting case. The standard filesystem, as you note, is HFS+ with journaling. Usually this is a danger sign for shredding as the shred process doesn't know all the information it needs to do a proper shredding job. However, Apple has shredding built-in to OSX, and since both the shredder and the filesystem come from the same people, it's at least possible that they did the necessary work to have this shred properly (i.e. in a journal-sensitive way). Did they actually do this? I have no idea, and would be curious to hear from someone who does have a reference on this one way or the other. Apple tends to be fairly stingy about this level of detail. David From shavital at mac.com Fri Aug 22 23:50:59 2008 From: shavital at mac.com (Charly Avital) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 17:50:59 -0400 Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> Message-ID: <48AF34C3.2060004@mac.com> reynt0 wrote the following on 8/22/08 5:10 PM: [...] > Here's a url for what seems to be the technical > description, at arXiv.org (found by search there): > > > What's available via the link at the online ScienceNews > article seems to require a login. Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it. When attempting to access the URL you indicated: I get a page with: *********** No paper 'arXiv:804.0122' The identifier you have specified (arXiv:804.0122) appears to be invalid. Please inform www-admin at arXiv.org if you believe that the identifier should correspond to a valid paper in arXiv. ********* I have searched the arXiv site for that paper identifier, no luck, but lots of articles on quantum encryption (searching by 'quantum encryption'), and I'm looking through them. In my system, the URL: displays the article in ScienceNews right away, without any need for login. I am not a subscriber to ScienceNews, and the URL was sent to me by a friend who shares my interest in encryption issues. Thanks again for your *positive* and helpful feedback. Charly From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Sat Aug 23 01:05:25 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 19:05:25 -0400 (EDT) Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AF34C3.2060004@mac.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> <48AF34C3.2060004@mac.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Charly Avital wrote: . . . >> What's available via the link at the online ScienceNews >> article seems to require a login. . . . > When attempting to access the URL you indicated: > > > I get a page with: > *********** > No paper 'arXiv:804.0122' Right you are, my typo, for which I apologize. Correct is (diff is the leading zero). . . . > In my system, the URL: > > displays the article in ScienceNews right away, without any need for > login. I am not a subscriber to ScienceNews, and the URL was sent to me . . . The login was at the site for a Poppe et al paper, "linked at" the ScienceNews page (right hand column, as a Citations & References), not the _SN_ page url itself. HTH From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Sat Aug 23 05:07:53 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 22:07:53 -0500 Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> <48AEC22C.5020306@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48AF7F09.8080606@sixdemonbag.org> reynt0 wrote: > Wouldn't the claim be: "cannot listen in on such a > transaction between Alice and Bob without affecting the > transaction in a detectable way"? Depends on how pedantic you want to be, and how you define 'transaction'. Frankly, if I were to have proof of an eavesdropper, I would consider the transaction to be compromised and I'd scrub it. Hence, QM makes it possible to have a key transaction between Alice and Bob guaranteed to be free of eavesdroppers. From kurtc1972 at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 08:35:21 2008 From: kurtc1972 at gmail.com (kurt c) Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 23:35:21 -0700 Subject: can't change to my real name on this mailing list Message-ID: <48AFAFA9.10506@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I don't know if this is more of a ThunderBird question. I have already changed this dummy kurtc name to my real name lawrence in the setting of my Gmail account, but somehow on this mailing list I still appear as "kurtc". I read it's because the outgoing server name is still under the name of "kurt c", and this outgoing server name can be changed under the "Tools" dropdown list. But somehow I don't see any outgoing server choice under the "Tools" section of my Enigmail. Can anyone give me some idea? Thanks. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkivr6kACgkQE7PX/Y51jV8jmACeOAvjiCOwZFZFw/UpQ7d4UiIi LTQAoLCbfmqYUpclF9c+MaMTUbHnde3k =bnEF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 08:58:41 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 01:58:41 -0500 Subject: can't change to my real name on this mailing list In-Reply-To: <48AFAFA9.10506@gmail.com> References: <48AFAFA9.10506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AFB521.3030606@gmail.com> kurt c wrote: > I don't know if this is more of a ThunderBird question. I have already > changed this dummy kurtc name to my real name lawrence in the setting of > my Gmail account, but somehow on this mailing list I still appear as > "kurtc". I read it's because the outgoing server name is still under the > name of "kurt c", and this outgoing server name can be changed under the > "Tools" dropdown list. But somehow I don't see any outgoing server > choice under the "Tools" section of my Enigmail. Can anyone give me some > idea? In Thunderbird, Edit -> Account Settings -> -> Your name should do it. And Enigmail has nothing to do with how accounts are set up; that is all Thunderbird's responsibility. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18063 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 23 09:33:06 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 03:33:06 -0400 Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <48AFBD32.4090101@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 reynt0 escribi?: > On Thu, 21 Aug 2008, David Shaw wrote: ... >> whether the filesystem you are using overwrites in place or not. Many >> modern filesystems (Reiser, XFS) do not necessarily overwrite in >> place. More primitive filesystems (like the FAT FS that is used on >> many external disks) do overwrite in place. Linux systems most ... > Might anyone have any quick info about this issue for MacOS? > From, say, OS10.2's HFS+, through OS10.3 and 10.4's journaled > HFS+, to whatever the current OS10.5 does if different? I would be interested in learning about the subject for windows xp sp2... By the way, I was reading about Kingson Data Traveler USB flash drive memory stick, and it also comes with "spare sectors", and manages them in "mysterious ways", so probably, it is not possible to delete a file in a "secure" way... In conclusion... the hammer-volcano-termite solution is the only reliable solution... which doesn't mean we can't try to do it in a less destructive way, *provided we can afford the failure to archive success* Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIr70yAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAzq4H/RxbHztX2JRb536i8b0Z4ue6 5j1Z793zswNPaJGZwsfxe5tH/WiDWPoR54J7P3VtC/jDK1OAsPfuz0ZDAXRuA32h V8SnXD5lfNuyLkr8D7fd5XKhrOYDlBM6Y8i1775/4r5iPh+zdneV7QI4nJ3ZOKwR +2Q3pcc05cIgRA7q4jHPx4uw0Ac/wSnFm/UcHcoDWGAz4pzOcjZsBBIFGPxRtQ5s tGockVMpgcOhVK3ehyOu5cR5UJkmXXPjTG2u13CvFai7+j864AWhF/H2Z6WvANHt NcgPQyp0zxlchWv+MZTn9l5natXeG1J7U4j/zFc3w6WRjuIYJEE6GcTTDHtVVg0= =iq9L -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Sat Aug 23 12:53:01 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:53:01 -0400 Subject: can't change to my real name on this mailing list In-Reply-To: <48AFAFA9.10506@gmail.com> References: <48AFAFA9.10506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48AFEC0D.1070402@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 kurt c wrote: > I don't know if this is more of a ThunderBird question. I have already > changed this dummy kurtc name to my real name lawrence in the setting of > my Gmail account, but somehow on this mailing list I still appear as > "kurtc". I read it's because the outgoing server name is still under the > name of "kurt c", and this outgoing server name can be changed under the > "Tools" dropdown list. But somehow I don't see any outgoing server > choice under the "Tools" section of my Enigmail. Can anyone give me some > idea? Thunderbird Account Settings; Click on the Name of the Account and fill in the "Your Name" box with the preferred display. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Saturday 23 Aug 2008, 06:52 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4815: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIr+wJAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPbU0H/R72fFR1jqzlti7tPqDHNP9J WGg+xwBap3Xqgw2xBxHpzfQRyn/Sh3EYkiij/HTTdcbSRxfaem3h7+msMitCCsCl r3dVMRDT0wID115CKMMTT7blhGD922T8qmagJ1Wzjro0OdiKEThbGeWUxGNYcaeQ pMgUoLYbckHfN81x9eMGNKcaARaqcQI/4da7I+X3C8/GOexLez+JZIbBwxXV3naF dgNSBDI1HYGaw3Sw0DnUIsHs0Q1jgmWssZIK7/4oGa3kIyyCGZV8bUuwro6Kp2/z mwMvS4mI17/I7tF+svhnmtDKNWkgm9ZxKwKl0wksUzIoxlOj6z1tg5hvNJidbBo= =VdIs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From varunreddyk at yahoo.com Thu Aug 21 09:00:08 2008 From: varunreddyk at yahoo.com (varun reddy) Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:00:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: subscribe to gnupg-users@gnupg.org Message-ID: <936480.96191.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Hi, ????I am facing some problem while?decrypting a file using Gnupg. Could you please help me out? ?Thanks & Regards, Varun.K -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atom at smasher.org Sat Aug 23 15:48:01 2008 From: atom at smasher.org (Atom Smasher) Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 01:48:01 +1200 (NZST) Subject: Securely delete files... In-Reply-To: <634F2DD2-5BAA-4BBC-82C9-8B961EFF54E9@jabberwocky.com> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <634F2DD2-5BAA-4BBC-82C9-8B961EFF54E9@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <20080823134800.81562.qmail@smasher.org> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, David Shaw wrote: > OS X is an interesting case. The standard filesystem, as you note, is > HFS+ with journaling. Usually this is a danger sign for shredding as > the shred process doesn't know all the information it needs to do a > proper shredding job. However, Apple has shredding built-in to OSX, and > since both the shredder and the filesystem come from the same people, > it's at least possible that they did the necessary work to have this > shred properly (i.e. in a journal-sensitive way). Did they actually do > this? I have no idea, and would be curious to hear from someone who > does have a reference on this one way or the other. Apple tends to be > fairly stingy about this level of detail. ================= test it! fill a file with a few hundred copies of a random hash. as a control, delete the file the normal way and try to find it on the disk (i'd expect you can find it). repeat with a different hash, shred the file, and try again to find it on the disk. -- ...atom ________________________ http://atom.smasher.org/ 762A 3B98 A3C3 96C9 C6B7 582A B88D 52E4 D9F5 7808 ------------------------------------------------- "The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life." -- Adolph Hitler Proclamation to the German nation at Berlin, 1 February 1933 From reynt0 at cs.albany.edu Sat Aug 23 19:50:41 2008 From: reynt0 at cs.albany.edu (reynt0) Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 13:50:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: " Welcome to the Quantum Internet" - By Davide Castelvecch In-Reply-To: <48AF7F09.8080606@sixdemonbag.org> References: <082020081445.1065.48AC2E04000E4CAE000004292215568884080E089C90040E029A05@comcast.net> <874p5fd0w1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48ACC030.7010701@gmail.com> <48ACC6B1.6070302@sixdemonbag.org> <48ADA735.8070306@chud.net> <48ADD959.4050201@gmail.com> <6E20A2AA-C14B-4FCE-BD50-727C3BCB9239@jabberwocky.com> <48AEA802.903@verizon.net> <48AEBD52.1040407@mac.com> <48AEC22C.5020306@sixdemonbag.org> <48AF7F09.8080606@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 22 Aug 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote: . . . > reynt0 wrote: >> Wouldn't the claim be: "cannot listen in on such a >> transaction between Alice and Bob without affecting the >> transaction in a detectable way"? > > Depends on how pedantic you want to be, and how you define > 'transaction'. Frankly, if I were to have proof of an eavesdropper, I > would consider the transaction to be compromised and I'd scrub it. > Hence, QM makes it possible to have a key transaction between Alice and > Bob guaranteed to be free of eavesdroppers. IIRC, the last time I read in detail about this, there was bit-by-bit analysis of a full communication A->B, and unconfirmed bits were removed from the total exchange, leaving confirmed bits to constitute the exchanged key (ie the key offer sent from Alice to Bob). The cause of a bit being unconfirmed could be evesdropper "touching"{*} the bit, circuit noise, etc, so of course DOS is obviously available by evesdropping on all the bits. (I'll not try to state here the reasoning behind the confirmation process, I'd have to look it up to satisfy myself my memory was good enough to say anything publicly about it :-) .) {*}: I've seen lately, but not reviewed in detail, mentions of successfully copying photon qbits, by tricky secondary entanglements, this possibly enabling a functional equivalent to store-and-forward of photons in their original entanglement state. I think the information was maybe in _Nature_, within the past couple of months??, maybe in one of the June 19 articles re quantum stuff (which included an article "The Quantum Internet" which was listed at the _SN_ article which started this thread)? From faramir.cl at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 08:25:45 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 02:25:45 -0400 Subject: subscribe to gnupg-users@gnupg.org In-Reply-To: <936480.96191.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <936480.96191.qm@web54502.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <48B25069.6010204@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 varun reddy escribi?: > Hi, > > I am facing some problem while decrypting a file using Gnupg. Could > you please help me out? If you give us more details, probably you will have more chances to get help about your problem... what version of Gnupg are you using? What operating system do you use? (windows xp, Windows vista, some linux distro, etc) Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIslBpAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAJdgIAJJDFfk18iqAeOIZ7WpbFIzV 44LQ21fdKJWPBSoVcPns9kcpoTct0ryuN7cr3TDEUE0Fy4mcgY0tGbYZMQ97cntt HKhG89S9KsMWumkf0ZjbpZ7u1tSSBJe32thivLzPTauOGvrmDBA+UEbQkTjOPoT0 J5/DTciEbk1GHAVPg6Ex/e0+r5CjJYJBcZn5IhFqAq6grf9bC8ySbT+fRS/oZYtK 5hrEHkkE3O9mAsqNrBSOb41JtsH8mUI7r25YfnB693KKsqwuLGvdKijZmsS25DLk bG2OiOb8KGFlphRNuvJnYleesjh1PR3kb+I8shYXN2KHZms9NtrCdn3+dDafV/A= =aQBO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jingz.bit at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 11:54:50 2008 From: jingz.bit at gmail.com (=?GB2312?B?1cW+uA==?=) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:54:50 +0800 Subject: How can I encrypt with a PGP pub key Message-ID: <4257be120808250254u6b1f16cau11ea540154f3aaf2@mail.gmail.com> Hi Is that impossible to encrypt with a PGP public key? My PGP is FW 6.5.8, and I tested to import the public key to GPG, encrypt a file with it, and decrypt the gpg file by PGP. But the descryption seemed failed Who knows how to do that? -- Best Regards -------------------------- Zhang Jing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Aug 25 12:52:53 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 05:52:53 -0500 Subject: How can I encrypt with a PGP pub key In-Reply-To: <4257be120808250254u6b1f16cau11ea540154f3aaf2@mail.gmail.com> References: <4257be120808250254u6b1f16cau11ea540154f3aaf2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B28F05.8030407@sixdemonbag.org> ?? wrote: > Is that impossible to encrypt with a PGP public key? Yes. > My PGP is FW 6.5.8, and I tested to import the public key to GPG, 6.5.8 is old. "Decrepit" might be a better word to use for it. It _way_ predates RFC4880, and thus you need to tell GnuPG to work around PGP 6.5.8's limitations. Add "--pgp6" to the beginning of your GnuPG command line. E.g.: gpg --pgp6 --recipient --encrypt From jingz.bit at gmail.com Mon Aug 25 18:09:31 2008 From: jingz.bit at gmail.com (=?GB2312?B?1cW+uA==?=) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 00:09:31 +0800 Subject: How can I encrypt with a PGP pub key and decrypt in pgp fw 6.5.8 Message-ID: <4257be120808250909u832a26x72901035f6896961@mail.gmail.com> hi I'm now working on encrypt files with the public key which was exported from PGP FW 6.5.8 But pgp still could not decrypt the gpg file correctly. Following is my command lines: $ gpg --import pgp_public_key.asc $ gpg --pgp6 -r UID --encrypt test.txt $ pgp test.txt.gpg -o test_decr.txt Unrecognized characters appeared in test_decr.txt Thanks. -- Best Regards -------------------------- Zhang Jing -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From allen.schultz at gmail.com Wed Aug 27 09:02:09 2008 From: allen.schultz at gmail.com (Allen Schultz) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:02:09 -0600 Subject: Windows Live Messenger Message-ID: <3f34f8420808270002r4d8cac3x90546283ea5694fb@mail.gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 GnuPG Users: I'm looking for a way to encrypt my chat messages with other users of Windows Live Messenger. Is there a gnupg based program that will do this or do I have to use a 3rd party encryption program or both of us have to have a 3rd party program with the plugin already installed? He likes the Windows Live Messenger as it has the file/folder sharing as part of the program and is used to it. Allen -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: http://getfiregpg.org iD8DBQFItPvwBii+WJwtK7YRAryHAKCHmxBZhuMh00Wd6VT615IflP57XgCgmcMF jHEnaJcXhIhdFcgQc4vtt4Q= =j+bA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu Wed Aug 27 13:38:17 2008 From: kissg at ssg.ki.iif.hu (Kiss Gabor (Bitman)) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:38:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [GnuPG-users] gpg-agent ignores preset passphrase In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > I tried to use "preset passphrase" feature but it does not work. > > Log shows that gpg-agent seemingly receives passphrase but later > > when agent should use the cached passphrase it ask for it again > > from pinentry. > Now I started to debug gpg-agent. > I.e. "miss" is changed to "hit". However a new pinentry popup window > appears yet. > > Putting some additional log_debug() statements in the code I found that > the critical part is function findkey.c:unprotect(). > It retrieves cached passphrase successfully but a few lines below > it calls agent_askpin() unconditionally. > > Why does this happen? Could somebody explain me? > And how should I use gpg-preset-passphrase? Just for the archive: I found a bug in gpg-agent. Since July 2006 gpg-preset-passphrases sends passphrase as a hexstring but gpg-agent does not convert it back to plaintext. Now gpgme + gpg-agent + gpg-preset-passphrase works very well for me. Details and patch are posted to gnupg-devel list. http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2008-August/024559.html Gabor From mingsing at doramail.com Tue Aug 26 12:52:15 2008 From: mingsing at doramail.com (Alan Wong) Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:52:15 +0800 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows Message-ID: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> Hi, Are there installation guides for installing gnupg on Windows platform? Thank you. Regards, Alan -- _______________________________________________ Get your free email from http://mail.doramail.com Powered by Outblaze From John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org Wed Aug 27 20:35:10 2008 From: John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org (John Clizbe) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:35:10 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <48B59E5E.90301@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Alan Wong wrote: > Hi, > > Are there installation guides for installing gnupg on Windows platform? > http://enigmail.mozdev.org/documentation/gpgsetup.php Barry porter and I wrote it for Enigmail use several years ago. Unless you plan on doing things at the command line, it's really just download and run the installer from http://www.gnupg.org/download/. ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/binary/gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe Current Release ftp://ftp.gnupg.org/gcrypt/binary/gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe.sig Signature c2efad983dfe50e6d8007257bad2c76604be389a gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe SHA-1 sum -- John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?" A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 677 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From faramir.cl at gmail.com Wed Aug 27 20:29:12 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:29:12 -0400 Subject: Windows Live Messenger In-Reply-To: <3f34f8420808270002r4d8cac3x90546283ea5694fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <3f34f8420808270002r4d8cac3x90546283ea5694fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B59CF8.3070206@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Allen Schultz escribi?: > GnuPG Users: > > I'm looking for a way to encrypt my chat messages with other users of > Windows Live Messenger. Is there a gnupg based program that will do > this or do I have to use a 3rd party encryption program or both of us > have to have a 3rd party program with the plugin already installed? He > likes the Windows Live Messenger as it has the file/folder sharing as > part of the program and is used to it. I think Windows Live Messenger is not capable to do that, but you can use other programs... Pidgin has at least 2 plugins to provide it encryption (Pidgin-Encryption 3.0 and Pidgin-OTR 3.2), and you can use portable pidgin if you don't want to install it on your computer (look at http://portableapps.com/apps/internet/pidgin_portable ). Both users need to be using the same program, since there is no point if you can encrypt something, if the other person can't decrypt it... You could use pidgin to talk, and windows live messenger to use shared folders, and you can use GnuPG to encrypt the files before adding them to the shared folder. I have not tried pidgin, so I don't know if it supports file sharing... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJItZz4AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAnpcH/RuVSyE9xcXMRUGcG+s4fx6+ KY3K0crXaybMKYVvDlfqzI6TRY1Xde3G2jwY92ePcYvlcb5jAWQyhskffpuCcXjF yyjlZgaautH515cUFoGN+BOo3lNeCz2GGFP3gRlYfQTUdGi435MV5FZYPHIpTTY6 2yCeMwWO/bvvK2ESx+W69CBMz6eKYB0iSdK54dBd3U9fte+0/6zFjFGgkVc2Am3H xsTXdpi9GY9q9jrrBryA0/Bj74Sn12o1QOV+p2qiqVaWZ5daLRxaFe+4puW7Zx9v n8Te/pMncZTQSPqynCI08mpPHgtxoh/YAXijAy30+3hM15/KWI9JtKqkuUWyGKM= =I2Qc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Wed Aug 27 23:25:12 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:25:12 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> Message-ID: <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Alan Wong escribi?: > Hi, > > Are there installation guides for installing gnupg on Windows platform? Hello Alan Probably there are instructions in several places, you just need to use google... but in my experience, just download GPG 1.4.9 installer, run it, and the only other thing it would be advisable to do, is to add gpg.exe to Windows's path environment variable, so you can use it at command line from any folder... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJItcY4AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAM3IIAKrN2JHS31FYi7s6IV7/qPb9 nZFjR4/KavVwSv1O2pr4E74j3IQeM5OCBXUr83WF1XRkgbCuv09fJRtTJbG+fQWl O1WfigHD7pBNuHCn0+Tl5GnV4e6htzvW8qRe7PoG4KGIigCDsmaJy2Yh231MKYxe 2V2WTXOg+vxsZyvmKnOGDbxIr/pmJjmR9IFGhC4AqFRkwpkNPZjXWLPGklwjoS7B N3C5MERGujYx2V40LNp81WYHDKPqROmfsUmADLrEhWE9MExAGad5cUYwwwooVHRJ lB+TULkjaAMlXUau77ybl5Frj35aOpdkXegCovSSeacsvncWaY0fWs+EkVe/Fck= =rDWY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Thu Aug 28 01:40:44 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 18:40:44 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B5E5FC.4070406@gmail.com> Faramir wrote: > and the only other thing it would be advisable to do, is to add > gpg.exe to Windows's path environment variable, so you can use it at > command line from any folder... The directory, not the executable itself. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18063 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From wk at gnupg.org Thu Aug 28 10:09:53 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 10:09:53 +0200 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> (faramir.cl@gmail.com's message of "Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:25:12 -0400") References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:25, faramir.cl at gmail.com said: > run it, and the only other thing it would be advisable to do, is to add > gpg.exe to Windows's path environment variable, so you can use it at > command line from any folder... I do not think that this is a too good idea. Newer version of GnuPG (in particular Gpg4win) add a whole bunch of DLLs and other binaries to this directory. Thus they would all be public and wrong DLLs might get used by other applications. Since Gpg4win 1.1.0 we use a different approach: The installer adds a directory to the PATH but that directory just contains those binaries which you actually want in the PATH. It is implemented using a wrapper utility to implement something like a of poor man's symlink. So my suggestion is to get Gpg4win 1.1.3 and install just the basic parts wich automagically adds gpg to the PATH. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From grahamtodd2 at googlemail.com Thu Aug 28 14:16:37 2008 From: grahamtodd2 at googlemail.com (Graham Todd) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:16:37 +0100 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B59E5E.90301@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B59E5E.90301@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Message-ID: <20080828131637.3305c8e9@graham-desktop> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 13:35:10 -0500 John Clizbe wrote: > Alan Wong wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Are there installation guides for installing gnupg on Windows > > platform? Probably the best place to help you is the PGP-Basics yahoogroup. It also deals with GnuPG, though this does mean joining another group :-) http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PGP-Basics/ -- Graham Todd From duwainer at srlcd.com Thu Aug 28 18:15:58 2008 From: duwainer at srlcd.com (Duwaine Robinson) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:15:58 -0500 Subject: Can I Encrypt Using an entire keyring instead of listing each key? Message-ID: Hi All, I would like to know if it is possible to encrypt files using my entire public key ring as the recipient instead of listing off each public key on the ring using the -r or recipient command. I guess my real concern is whether or not public my public keyring can be used as one entity during encryption. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thank You -Duwaine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Thu Aug 28 18:44:46 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:44:46 -0400 Subject: Can I Encrypt Using an entire keyring instead of listing each key? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20080828164445.GA95947@jabberwocky.com> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:15:58AM -0500, Duwaine Robinson wrote: > > Hi All, > > I would like to know if it is possible to encrypt files using my entire > public key ring as the recipient instead of listing off each public key > on the ring using the -r or recipient command. I guess my real concern > is whether or not public my public keyring can be used as one entity > during encryption. No, you can't. To include an entire keyring, you need to list each key in that ring explicitly. David From faramir.cl at gmail.com Thu Aug 28 21:53:59 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:53:59 -0400 Subject: Can I Encrypt Using an entire keyring instead of listing each key? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B70257.7040304@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Duwaine Robinson escribi?: > > Hi All, > > I would like to know if it is possible to encrypt files using my entire > public key ring as the recipient instead of listing off each public key > on the ring using the -r or recipient command. I guess my real concern > is whether or not public my public keyring can be used as one entity > during encryption. I am not sure if it is a GPG function, or just a function of GPGshell, but I can group public keys, and encrypt files to all the public keys in that group. What operating system are you using? If GPG doesn't allow it, maybe there is some GUI available for your operating system that can do the trick... Of course, you would have to take the time to make the group... Asking google about the subject, I found the following: _______________________________________________Quoting From: Dennis Lambe Jr. [mailto:malsyned at xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 12:10 AM To: Oertel, Paul Cc: 'gnupg-users at xxxxxxxxx' Subject: Re: GPG Recipients List On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 03:53, Oertel, Paul wrote: > I want to make a group of recipients. The manual indicates that I can > do do this using the --group option but it doesn't give any examples > or explain how to do it. When I try to follow the manual it looks > something like this. > > C:\GnuPG>gpg --group "mylist=Paul" > gpg: Go ahead and type your message ... GnuPG splits its command-line arguments up into options and commands. Any option can also be specified in your config file, ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf, which will cause it to be in effect for every gpg command you run. As a result of this, the documentation lists a lot of command-line switches that are of little use on the command line, but useful as part of your config file. The "group" option is one of these. If you specify a group on the command line, that group only exists for the lifetime of the command that you are running (and is therefore nigh useless). If you specify a group in the config file, that group will exist to gpg whenever you run it, allowing you to specify it as a recipient of encrypted messages (-r groupname). It looks like you're expecting the --group command-line option to create a group which persists for longer than the lifetime of the gpg process you gave it to. That's not how configuration works in GnuPG. Any change that you want to make to the behavior of all subsequent gpg processes must be made in the config file. __________________________________________End of quoting Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJItwJXAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAGswIAKR2RAOOl8ZxzicYGDhvclHv 1/9LcNdV2TEFPpY2JbCek5gtCweMUbTzfUrpRvZ3JtSWZEJ/MF4caMh0zOOYIT1T c9sESObngNa6tqjCTos3oqhc8c10rwYdbQXq7C8VTzDLuRDSfBLt7aYKvVLsqadW I91h6oYULa7FYSMNOG6xjNBCZRm0nNYwoEiBeFvfU2DGuw01YV0vIib64UPUj0nD 42zbXoig30ND7agrT6Hq6DCDIiQTOQJeHkOca5Tl2D6dHHxT4v+a2pXKXeWrWbvo HTRXSVMtkbu4mZjiw721ryE2ziZe/q7+Qj1htHWp8bL1dNwdJ5+jUzOekmmpCVw= =QVKY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 00:07:28 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:07:28 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> Werner Koch wrote: > I do not think that this is a too good idea. Newer version of GnuPG (in > particular Gpg4win) add a whole bunch of DLLs and other binaries to this > directory. Thus they would all be public and wrong DLLs might get used > by other applications. I installed the regular package (gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe), and the only library in the directory is iconv.dll. Without Gpg4win, I don't see a problem. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18063 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 06:22:06 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:22:06 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Andrew Berg escribi?: > Werner Koch wrote: >> I do not think that this is a too good idea. Newer version of GnuPG (in >> particular Gpg4win) add a whole bunch of DLLs and other binaries to this ... > I installed the regular package (gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe), and the only > library in the directory is iconv.dll. Without Gpg4win, I don't see a > problem. Same here... By the way, I still don't understand the benefit from GPG2... at first I thought the addition of support of x509 certificates would allow to use them in a ring of trust model (like the PGP model), but I am not even sure about if GPG2 can generate such certificates... but I remember I saw, when the cetificate generation bug in OpenSSL for debian machines was discovered, a site said "certificates generated by GnuPG are not affected". For those reasons, if somebody asks if it is hard to install GPG on windows, I say "no, install version 1.4.9, it is easy" ;-) Best Regards P.S: I know GPG2 is supposed to work with outlook, but I don't use outlook at all, so... -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIt3luAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAT8UH/RRULZXXIPW5QKauLtctGCJj Z508ATve16e9Zx9eyoSCiQAtrXp255pqjrxqrNe1RqeFq24APx6RuJLUUa6NPwH2 84qFxxPceyOLOxJykc2SYnk/PDHR7Qr+4v1vDg828F/74nbpqRNLbGs5YI+IzMQc K27IolnvDvapAI3/I3xN1rhbjnLh+Bl7Bfcq8l1CJY4xh2rQIZm8blO4bU0RXq56 DrDg+/HrArg9ucppnayu6ulyDMwicDN4a7exgZHYb3jS3QHUsjhXzEl3WU0fcvp4 uvmie8fpIYCWAxK9rMcYgFwjQZca2a0yW6wnArrBRBos+nKV+n1s1vyVuktoWwU= =5PeA -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net Fri Aug 29 13:02:11 2008 From: jmoore3rd at bellsouth.net (John W. Moore III) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:02:11 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B7D733.9070605@bellsouth.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Faramir wrote: > but I remember I saw, when the cetificate generation bug in OpenSSL for > debian machines was discovered, a site said "certificates generated by > GnuPG are not affected". You may be under the impression that a Key & a Certificate are 2 different animals. By definition, a PGP/GPG Key _is_ a Certificate. An x.509 Certificate is just an asymmetric Keypair issued/assigned by an Organization whereas a PGP/GPG Key is basically a self-generated Certificate. The 'generation bug' had to do with the software used by x.509 Organizations to created the 'Keypair' they assigned to their clients. GnuPG uses a different random number generation process so was not affected. JOHN ;) Timestamp: Friday 29 Aug 2008, 07:01 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4818: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJIt9cwAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPTlAH/RL9LO7OOhsJz12NZjDRf3dU lPTmJk81LdLnl8c32ht6KltrQtXhsv4z5mOiSdcxj5qVEOpG1kSbfxzmQjh10Dvk 6PpyEsiGMG8c9nOMYlrstVpV95rdnFNCqbK7FBOlLeeFdFU0C2EJGsqzqqs94tOG ARTNJ6MvUky7DvmEih1D12N0NW+kO145HHOO5JiAgbpGiJ/VD9FrO6SFKihw6AtM S8TxvbAKa3xYZjoud3cCTJts0mYirx3I21TCuj4kh6zBg/3SPZsbcWr58fpzeFTu 5C2rEJrKEJ1nAIDR1ra1VlcJ9hN9Y5bAjtGLudlwEg2SEX+uPw6A/vxJNh6/an0= =r/fK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From wk at gnupg.org Fri Aug 29 13:04:48 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:04:48 +0200 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> (Andrew Berg's message of "Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:07:28 -0500") References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87myiw6q0f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:07, bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com said: > I installed the regular package (gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe), and the only > library in the directory is iconv.dll. Without Gpg4win, I don't see a > problem. The problem is that %PATH% will often stay forever and new stuff will only be appended. Thus if you later install Gpg4win all the DLLS will end up there and unfortunately Windows will try to locate DLLs also via PATH. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From wk at gnupg.org Fri Aug 29 13:12:10 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:12:10 +0200 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> (faramir.cl@gmail.com's message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:22:06 -0400") References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <87iqtk6po5.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 06:22, faramir.cl at gmail.com said: > Same here... By the way, I still don't understand the benefit from > GPG2... at first I thought the addition of support of x509 certificates For example the Pinentry, which will relieve applications from the cumbersome task of asking the user for a passphrase and caching that passphrase. There is also the gpgconf stuff which provides a unified way of managing configuration files (for example GPA uses this). Add well, proper X.509/CMS support. > but I am not even sure about if GPG2 can generate such certificates... No gpg can't generate certifciates becuase that is the task of a CA. It can however create a key along with a certifciate signing requests. On the command line checkout "gpgsm --gen-key" > but I remember I saw, when the cetificate generation bug in OpenSSL for > debian machines was discovered, a site said "certificates generated by > GnuPG are not affected". Well, we use the term certifciates today for both, X.509 and OpenPGP becuase they are basically the same: A certificate showng that a key belongs to a certain entity. > For those reasons, if somebody asks if it is hard to install GPG on > windows, I say "no, install version 1.4.9, it is easy" ;-) Well, gpg4win is easier to install, you use the light version if you just need gpg. The old binary gnupg-1 installer is only maintained for people who need it on servers etc. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 14:15:51 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:15:51 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7D733.9070605@bellsouth.net> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7D733.9070605@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <48B7E877.3050001@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 John W. Moore III escribi?: > Faramir wrote: > >> but I remember I saw, when the cetificate generation bug in OpenSSL for >> debian machines was discovered, a site said "certificates generated by >> GnuPG are not affected". > > You may be under the impression that a Key & a Certificate are 2 > different animals. By definition, a PGP/GPG Key _is_ a Certificate. An Once I read "a signed public key it is a certificate". I have also seen discussions about if people is using keys OR certificates... since I couldn't understand the difference (and the discussion seemed to be becoming a flame), I didn't participate on that one... So I was almost sure they were the same animal, but not sure enough to defend that position. However, since most people just know about x.509 certificates (because they are used by SSL), when I see the word "certificate", the first thing I think about, is SSL stuff related (and I think S/MIME uses the same kind of certificates). At GPG list, people usually talk about keys... so when I read "public key", the first thing I think about is OpenPGP. > x.509 Certificate is just an asymmetric Keypair issued/assigned by an > Organization whereas a PGP/GPG Key is basically a self-generated > Certificate. Clear like water... but I think it would be interesting if people could use x.509 certificates as we use GPG... I mean, if I can make a self signed certificate, and exchange it with a friend, and we could sign these certificates, and make some software to trust them (since they have been signed with my own key), I could use these certificates with outlook, or even for web site login purposes (at CAcert web site, people can use their CAcert issued certificates to login, instead of user name and password). I figure all that CAN be done... but I don't think that would be easy to do... so I though _maybe_ GPG2 would be taking a step in that direction. All I know about GPG4win (the only GPG2 software I can use, since it can't be compiled in windows environment), is it comes with a lot of software, probably even with a mail client, and "it supports x.509 certificates". But I don't know if it intends to decentralize the "trust", or if it is just about to put all security/authentication stuff together. > The 'generation bug' had to do with the software used by x.509 > Organizations to created the 'Keypair' they assigned to their clients. > GnuPG uses a different random number generation process so was not affected. Yes, but if we compare certificates created with OpenSSL, and certificates OpenPGP, it is an apples and grapes thing, so I supposed ^maybe^ they were talking about GPG2, and that GPG2 had the capability to generate x.509 keys... but I never confirmed that, so I archived it in my "maybe..." folder :-P Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIt+h2AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAlYAH/jyf43u1mrmgVw4+S7NjfPet zGuU+EY25uU/+FervGq1XPtALTbs0p3L9a6eo06uN4AYOchGsix2Ow8joFnaMEWY HHK84zft1pk2qHEPOIPAmID8N9tNDCyHVG4Fb4z1ws60K50ExT/7npG1pWbXcIlS pr/xo9Jmps37yHdUruJT1OcLFdhE0+tGto2hJNHfX7eWHCrOoF0dQH3RPE3hmybw 70Tid3C73l1VTkbqoeCBkqJJyrgrT5BV7qpfnQgZdXsG8CG9g4HJKJ2U6vStRHrF 7tPZcgklLHPGvZp/iJsn4c2ZP79KfrpQIb+vKz+kz5D9cHNZW9B4Wtmm3oHv57E= =hMJ6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 14:17:31 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:17:31 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <87myiw6q0f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <87myiw6q0f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <48B7E8DB.7090806@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Werner Koch escribi?: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 00:07, bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com said: > >> I installed the regular package (gnupg-w32cli-1.4.9.exe), and the only >> library in the directory is iconv.dll. Without Gpg4win, I don't see a >> problem. > > The problem is that %PATH% will often stay forever and new stuff will > only be appended. Thus if you later install Gpg4win all the DLLS will > end up there and unfortunately Windows will try to locate DLLs also via > PATH. Good point, I had not thought about that... I will check my path and fix it if needed... Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIt+jaAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAxHcH/3p8fYyDs9D0/V86SXt9UhWO S5peW5qVb9v+clrsxmfzCBPiLavIC74p3Xl+47JJb/o9vMFcxj3Y7oXIL/Zjctpf 8Cc6+AM+Za9BpnH7iygR47tvLFtuLxTU1exnafbezyc465iANNFlmyhniR8uqr8k XU7tAxui3EHuT6ROiCgl01PtliIhKE3vfc8mRpr4T8nI0ul6WNnYgvwodEqpdV1P GTbGj004l64QYOQL15Xak4IUuzrPElKiMKwLFmDG9YaFcyp87bgtzxRd0PYlSGKO hAuIcqOvLRfIg3TTIhzsHSls5WYHEPIfDPliZl0UI05+yuOYPyXLtyzpS49NTSM= =bnHm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Aug 29 14:48:51 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 07:48:51 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> Faramir wrote: > Same here... By the way, I still don't understand the benefit from > GPG2... Principally, two things: * The architecture has been redone to make it easier to maintain * The introduction of S/MIME support These are the two claims Werner, David and others have made re: GnuPG 2.x. I have not yet verified either; I have no need for GnuPG's S/MIME, and I haven't taken a good look at the code. From duwainer at srlcd.com Fri Aug 29 15:30:48 2008 From: duwainer at srlcd.com (Duwaine Robinson) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:30:48 -0500 Subject: Can I Encrypt Using an entire keyring instead of listing each key? Message-ID: I am using Windows XP/2000 and Server 2003. I decided that my list is small enough for it to be ok to for to just list the public during encryption. I would still love to explore encrypting using a group of keys so when I get some time I will explore using your --group command if that is at all possible. Thank you -Duwaine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jpsecher at gmail.com Fri Aug 29 15:45:59 2008 From: jpsecher at gmail.com (Jens Peter Secher) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:45:59 +0200 Subject: [SOLVED] Re: gpg-agent, ssh-add & crypto card keys In-Reply-To: <87fxp0dsha.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87fxp0dsha.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: 2008/8/20 Werner Koch : > > Check out whether scdaemon is working, example: > Sorry about my late reply. Thanks a lot for your help! The problem seemed to be that 1. Use a regular key (ie. .ssh/id_rsa) with ssh-add to login via ssh, and no card inserted. 2. Inserting the card. 3. Now the card was not recognised by ssh-add -l. When I write in past tense, it is because everything seems to work fine now, and I have not been able to reproduce. The problem /might/ have been solved by an automatic update to /etc/X11/Xsession.d/90x11-common_ssh-agent on my Debian system. I am sorry I cannot be more specific, but if the problem does not resurface, I guess everything is fine. Thanks, -- Jens Peter Secher. _DD6A 05B0 174E BFB2 D4D9 B52E 0EE5 978A FE63 E8A1 jpsecher gmail com_. A. Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion. Q. Why is top posting bad? From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 29 16:59:45 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 10:59:45 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <569ACC40-76A0-40EB-8469-80146F72E09D@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 29, 2008, at 8:48 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Faramir wrote: >> Same here... By the way, I still don't understand the benefit from >> GPG2... > > Principally, two things: > > * The architecture has been redone to make it easier to maintain > * The introduction of S/MIME support > > These are the two claims Werner, David and others have made re: GnuPG > 2.x. I have not yet verified either; I have no need for GnuPG's S/ > MIME, > and I haven't taken a good look at the code. This isn't quite right - I haven't been very involved in GPG 2- specific stuff (S/MIME, the assuan stuff, etc). I've been very involved in GPG in general, of course, but my work with OpenPGP tends to apply to both 1 and 2. GPG 1 scratches my particular itch, so I usually run that rather than the larger GPG 2. David From duwainer at srlcd.com Fri Aug 29 18:47:47 2008 From: duwainer at srlcd.com (Duwaine Robinson) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:47:47 -0500 Subject: Automate decryption Message-ID: Hi All, I want to automate decryption with GnuPG and I am not sure how is the best way to go about handling the passphrase. Anybody have any ideas, suggestions or any failed attempts to speak of? Thank you -Duwaine -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Aug 29 19:04:42 2008 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:04:42 -0500 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <48B82C2A.30203@sixdemonbag.org> Duwaine Robinson wrote: > I want to automate decryption with GnuPG and I am not sure how is the > best way to go about handling the passphrase. Anybody have any ideas, > suggestions or any failed attempts to speak of? It's fairly easy to automate things with Perl. Biggest concern will be keeping the file unreadable by other users, though, since your passphrase will be in the file. From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Fri Aug 29 19:15:18 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 13:15:18 -0400 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0B866EB7-782B-4F73-8DEA-B1CDC2F8081F@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Duwaine Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > I want to automate decryption with GnuPG and I am not sure how is > the best way to go about handling the passphrase. Anybody have any > ideas, suggestions or any failed attempts to speak of? > In general, yes, there are many ways to do it. The details depend on what the goal is. Is this a server doing the work (i.e. no human present), or do you just want to cache the passphrase so you don't have to retype it frequently? Or... ? Also, to give you the best information, can you tell me if you are using GnuPG 1.4 or GnuPG 2.0, as well as what platform (Linux, OSX, Windows, etc) you are running on. David From duwainer at srlcd.com Fri Aug 29 19:22:13 2008 From: duwainer at srlcd.com (Duwaine Robinson) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:22:13 -0500 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: <48B82C2A.30203@sixdemonbag.org> References: <48B82C2A.30203@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: That exactly is my problem because I don't want my passphrase to be accessible. Duwaine Robinson -----Original Message----- From: Robert J. Hansen [mailto:rjh at sixdemonbag.org] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:05 PM To: Duwaine Robinson Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org Subject: Re: Automate decryption Duwaine Robinson wrote: > I want to automate decryption with GnuPG and I am not sure how is the > best way to go about handling the passphrase. Anybody have any ideas, > suggestions or any failed attempts to speak of? It's fairly easy to automate things with Perl. Biggest concern will be keeping the file unreadable by other users, though, since your passphrase will be in the file. From duwainer at srlcd.com Fri Aug 29 19:24:56 2008 From: duwainer at srlcd.com (Duwaine Robinson) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:56 -0500 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: <0B866EB7-782B-4F73-8DEA-B1CDC2F8081F@jabberwocky.com> References: <0B866EB7-782B-4F73-8DEA-B1CDC2F8081F@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: David, It will be a server doing the work. I want it completely automated, so there will be no human interaction. I am using GnuPG 1.4 on Windows. Thank you -Duwaine -----Original Message----- From: David Shaw [mailto:dshaw at jabberwocky.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 12:15 PM To: Duwaine Robinson Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org Subject: Re: Automate decryption On Aug 29, 2008, at 12:47 PM, Duwaine Robinson wrote: > Hi All, > > I want to automate decryption with GnuPG and I am not sure how is the > best way to go about handling the passphrase. Anybody have any ideas, > suggestions or any failed attempts to speak of? > In general, yes, there are many ways to do it. The details depend on what the goal is. Is this a server doing the work (i.e. no human present), or do you just want to cache the passphrase so you don't have to retype it frequently? Or... ? Also, to give you the best information, can you tell me if you are using GnuPG 1.4 or GnuPG 2.0, as well as what platform (Linux, OSX, Windows, etc) you are running on. David From wk at gnupg.org Fri Aug 29 19:51:09 2008 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:51:09 +0200 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: (Duwaine Robinson's message of "Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:24:56 -0500") References: <0B866EB7-782B-4F73-8DEA-B1CDC2F8081F@jabberwocky.com> Message-ID: <87fxon6776.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:24, duwainer at srlcd.com said: > It will be a server doing the work. I want it completely automated, so > there will be no human interaction. To avoid having your keys or a passphrase stored somewhere on the disk you have two choices: 1. Use gpg-agent and gpg-preset-passphrase along with a script to ask the operator at boot time to enter the passphrase. That will keep the passphrase only in memory and thus make it a little bit harder for attackers to get it. Note that gpg-preset-passphrase has a bug but that will be fixed soon. 2. Use a HSM, like a smartcard to store the key and have it decrypt the key. This way an attacker won't be able to get the key. One attack you can't avoid is an attacker using your system to decrypt files. I doubt that this is a real threat because the attacker could just get the plaintext after gpg decrypted it. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Linux-Kongress 2008 + Hamburg + October 7-10 + www.linux-kongress.org Die Gedanken sind frei. Auschnahme regelt ein Bundeschgesetz. From dshaw at jabberwocky.com Sat Aug 30 04:18:58 2008 From: dshaw at jabberwocky.com (David Shaw) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 22:18:58 -0400 Subject: Automate decryption In-Reply-To: References: <48B82C2A.30203@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <98ACCD79-901F-4870-B0C4-185629ABDAAF@jabberwocky.com> On Aug 29, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Duwaine Robinson wrote: > That exactly is my problem because I don't want my passphrase to be > accessible. That makes things difficult. You basically have two choices: One, store your passphrase on disk (or just use no passphrase at all). Two, have something that prompts for your passphrase at boot time and caches it in memory for you (gpg-agent, or you can roll your own). One has security problems if someone else can get access to the box, Two has problems if someone can get access to the box, plus problems if you have an unexpected reboot (power failure or crash) and a human isn't around to type in the passphrase. Many people solve this problem with method One, and then making sure they lock the box down tightly. David From kurtc1972 at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 06:23:09 2008 From: kurtc1972 at gmail.com (Lawrence Chin) Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 21:23:09 -0700 Subject: keyserver traffic hijacking? Message-ID: <48B8CB2D.3050506@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi everyone. I've been confused about one thing. Several days ago when I typed in the url http://pool.sks-keyservers.net into my browser, this website called www.kim-minh.com kept popping up instead and wouldn't let me go to pool.sks-keyservers.net. Is this some sort of traffic hijacking or what? Did anyone see the same thing? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAki4yy0ACgkQE7PX/Y51jV+eHACeJ16cKSiRsJlBkXiT8khd3E06 pi8AnR+xAAIyKN9MTVVATSl7N0iKDmqe =Ercg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 12:23:33 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 06:23:33 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Well, I talked too fast... I messed a bit my windows registry, so I thought it was a good time to format and reinstall (I am one of these people that think it is good to reinstall windows from time to time). The funny thing is, when I tried to add gpg.exe to my windows path global variable... it didn't add it. The path is there, but I can't start gpg from any other folder than the one where it is located. and of course, GPGshell didn't like it at all... I figure this is more like a windows question, so take it as a comment... however, if somebody is feeling charitable, and can provide a hint, I would appreciate it... My PATH variable has the following values: %SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;"c:\archivos de programa\gnu\gnupg\gpg.exe" The weird thing is I have installed GPG at least 3 times, and it never gave me any problem... Best regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIuR+lAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA590H/jwBrTuCUUL6g7uc+iMeNMVr 9WDC512rih9qnxi7nUVb82JhD5thS/Rs3mVshmO6eWVh41okuDAEbxWFUorzsFR8 syZkPb2TlbjSqi+og+XrJCh8BdhzTw9XV0j+gktgqvFUqE9gi/iU2SZ42xToX26M xoMWj22dh93tkBsn1m5L4HRdgL1m6doY7k4Ph+Sd52nSgIVO/bcXuO7xs4iY7cv+ aDewnP9PtFmNnAEF13uXTw3AWZJsS9P8xsHjmA6abXVkt8/jwTTIueCA4AKlfc2m f1ZIg3uDgwBUKT5+tTFyQMeMF2+0us8iXumRn8GsIx8C70gS3O1ZVUoggaVvZhY= =qyQg -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 12:35:39 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:35:39 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B9227B.8010506@gmail.com> Faramir wrote: > My PATH variable has the following values: > %SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;"c:\archivos > de programa\gnu\gnupg\gpg.exe" The point of %path% is to search /directories/. A file is out of context and meaningless here. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18063 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 12:38:16 2008 From: bahamutzero8825 at gmail.com (Andrew Berg) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 05:38:16 -0500 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows In-Reply-To: <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B92318.10006@gmail.com> > The point of %path% is to search /directories/. A file is out of context > and meaningless here. Thought I added this: Use the GPG directory, and not the GPG executable itself. -- Key ID: 0xF88E034060A78FCB Fingerprint: 4A84 CAE2 A0D3 2AEB 71F6 07FD F88E 0340 60A7 8FCB Windows NT 6.0.6001.18063 | GPG 1.4.9 | Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 | Enigmail 0.95.7 From mlisten at hammernoch.net Sat Aug 30 13:09:05 2008 From: mlisten at hammernoch.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ludwig_H=FCgelsch=E4fer?=) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 13:09:05 +0200 Subject: keyserver traffic hijacking? In-Reply-To: <48B8CB2D.3050506@gmail.com> References: <48B8CB2D.3050506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B92A51.9050500@hammernoch.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 Hi, Lawrence Chin wrote on 30.08.2008 6:23 Uhr: > Hi everyone. > > I've been confused about one thing. Several days ago when I typed in the > url http://pool.sks-keyservers.net into my browser, this website called > www.kim-minh.com kept popping up instead and wouldn't let me go to > pool.sks-keyservers.net. Is this some sort of traffic hijacking or what? > Did anyone see the same thing? pool.sks-keyservers.net isn't a single machine. As the name indicates, it is a pool of machines. Which one you get out of this pool is more or less random. If you lookup the IP-address of pool.sks-keyservers.net you get pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 195.113.19.83 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 202.191.99.51 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 195.111.98.30 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 66.163.18.195 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 78.47.223.101 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 216.215.6.39 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 91.121.167.18 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 86.59.21.34 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 193.174.13.74 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 64.71.173.107 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 194.171.167.147 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 213.239.210.122 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 72.190.107.50 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 128.220.220.244 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 212.227.108.151 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 213.239.212.133 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 85.214.20.227 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 213.146.108.162 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 195.22.207.161 pool.sks-keyservers.net. 28800 IN A 64.71.173.98 If you lookup www.kim-minh.com you get www.kim-minh.com. 43200 IN CNAME kim.kim-minh.com. kim.kim-minh.com. 43200 IN A 91.121.167.18 so that's one of the above addresses for pool.sks-keyservers.net If you go to http://91.121.167.18, you end up in a web-interface that looks like a key lookup or trust chain lookup. It's in french, so I'm not a 100% sure. Port: 11371 for hkp is open, so there seems to be a keyserver implemented. However, the command gpg --keyserver hkp://91.121.167.1 --recv-key 0xdeadbeef fails with a timeout, so there may be a temporary network problem. All in all there is no sign of DNS poisoning or traffic hijacking in my eyes. HTH Ludwig -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEVAwUBSLkqUFYnpxVXVowdAQrXbQf9ESFm8mPUgwn2Djn6L1eXJyWC5prjb6yg ANNBpJXbDUO03udtIdSV8hncd8af+vxL/KoEiQH42jHPN+DK69u/lIs8PoGhSwKk +BV8yO7mFM8AkRumz+jqkNR7dWf6WpTYBMS3gXNHdy4D4maFU2amm03YQVg0baAv tROhPXLXb3lW3aCjuCSt+jR9x/IVmVnih7nPUYLBgIAgpeqaJLK6k0fWOcqIdz8Q Hnwnbc3Vi8WwCs58CpdbFl5NRq15vVrfs+Xx8syMjA1KkEjnN9kvnNHunkGJmVht WcX9kCG7G77TrHNO/htUECS6Z4sxuCD2lz2kLzaWj8g6/c4++ErUsg== =SJJN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From faramir.cl at gmail.com Sat Aug 30 14:15:44 2008 From: faramir.cl at gmail.com (Faramir) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 08:15:44 -0400 Subject: Installation gnupg on Windows (how to put gpg on windows path) In-Reply-To: <48B92318.10006@gmail.com> References: <20080826105216.3714FCBA0F@ws5-11.us4.outblaze.com> <48B5C638.1020801@gmail.com> <87bpzdef1q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <48B721A0.5070601@gmail.com> <48B7796E.6040300@gmail.com> <48B7F033.4040009@sixdemonbag.org> <48B91FA5.9090009@gmail.com> <48B92318.10006@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B939F0.4080105@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 Andrew Berg escribi?: >> The point of %path% is to search /directories/. A file is out of context >> and meaningless here. > Thought I added this: > Use the GPG directory, and not the GPG executable itself. Thanks, it solved the problem... :D Now the entry is %SystemRoot%\system32;%SystemRoot%;%SystemRoot%\System32\Wbem;"c:\archivos de programa\gnu\gnupg\" (just in case someone else needs it) Best Regards -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJIuTnwAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAx7AH/1p8RIt/XT/CsiuL110pjbjh LvsvUrNBDl6cpO5Hjq6qjs1nOpUWmMebYzPEf5um7eJ8/YGFN6HwKXxH0rThNv/p nW6H4ychr2GgIXM350YWMCOZlmXrrD7p4tu6Jo0LHkxRlOIGRfTy7sQKBvaYCqOO 4MRnhNcrcxpjMtI87uZZmscOJfTXzuomZRJLU7qv8DqXyvDZ22+EYv3C5xG+xsa0 oQzaDn9fHkMLA7tLUimIBz4XrBCPh1NKusjYGun4h7gSK4y88OM3We6ytuH6asWF yb+e7lGLUJEKDage4Av1jEiL0ih2mVtkQUFnkOJST/KQJdmFKywsvAUzSUTUlbU= =LOYX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org Sat Aug 30 18:40:58 2008 From: John at Mozilla-Enigmail.org (John Clizbe) Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2008 11:40:58 -0500 Subject: keyserver traffic hijacking? In-Reply-To: <48B8CB2D.3050506@gmail.com> References: <48B8CB2D.3050506@gmail.com> Message-ID: <48B9781A.8030801@Mozilla-Enigmail.org> Lawrence Chin wrote: > I've been confused about one thing. Several days ago when I typed in the > url http://pool.sks-keyservers.net into my browser, this website called > www.kim-minh.com kept popping up instead and wouldn't let me go to > pool.sks-keyservers.net. Is this some sort of traffic hijacking or what? > Did anyone see the same thing? Well, what's the problem? There's no 'hijacking' involved - _THAT'S_How_it's_supposed_to_work_ Kim-Minh's server is usually in the pool, as is mine. 1) pool.sks-keyservers.net is *not* some single machine. It is a collection of 20 server addresses chosen at random from a pool of 30-34 well-connected servers which is updated twice per day. (See [1]) Because of the way SKS operates, you should consider any and all servers in pool.sks-keyservers.net to be equivalent, use the pool DNS A record and not worry about which individual server your OS' resolver code returns to you. 2) Typing http://pool.sks-keyservers.net or, for that matter, http:// into a browser will fail a healthy percentage of the time. The failure is not the fault of the keyserver. Of the 37 SKS servers detailed at Peter Pramberger's SKS Status page[2], only 14 listen on port 80 in addition to listening on the SKS default port of 11371. FWIW, there is no requirement that a SKS server provide an human readable web page. Most do, but it's not required. If you're set on accessing a server web page, you must specify the port as well as the specific server, not the collection name, http://:11371 [1] http://www.sks-keyservers.net/status/ [2] http://www.pramberger.at/peter/services/keyserver/network/ -- John P. Clizbe Inet:John (a) Mozilla-Enigmail.org You can't spell fiasco without SCO. hkp://keyserver.gingerbear.net or mailto:pgp-public-keys at gingerbear.net?subject=HELP Q:"Just how do the residents of Haiku, Hawai'i hold conversations?" A:"An odd melody / island voices on the winds / surplus of vowels" -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 677 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: