Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: GnuPG: users

Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.

  

 
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All GnuPG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


avi.wiki at gmail

May 22, 2012, 12:10 PM

Post #26 of 45 (240 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM, <gnupg-users-request [at] gnupg> wrote:
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "Robert J. Hansen" <rjh [at] sixdemonbag>
> To: gnupg-users [at] gnupg
> Cc:
> Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 14:40:07 -0400
> Subject: Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg.
> On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
>> Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
>> participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
>
> I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect
> Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants, I would be happy to take a
> stab at writing it.


Didn't you already write a pretty good one one, Robert?
<http://sixdemonbag.org/cryptofaq.xhtml>

--Avi

----
User:Avraham

pub 3072D/F80E29F9 1/30/2009 Avi (Wikimedia-related key) <avi.wiki [at] gmail>
Primary key fingerprint: 167C 063F 7981 A1F6 71EC ABAA 0D62 B019 F80E 29F9

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


rjh at sixdemonbag

May 22, 2012, 12:14 PM

Post #27 of 45 (235 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On 5/22/12 3:10 PM, Avi wrote:
> Didn't you already write a pretty good one one, Robert?
> <http://sixdemonbag.org/cryptofaq.xhtml>

It's hubris for an author to refer to his own work. :) Also, that FAQ
is in desperate need of a rewrite. Nothing in it is wrong, per se, but
it needs a rewrite.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


jerry at seibercom

May 22, 2012, 12:27 PM

Post #28 of 45 (241 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On Tue, 22 May 2012 13:48:26 -0500
John Clizbe articulated:

>All this and you're worried about overkill on the one place they WON'T
>attack? No one attacks the crypto. They're are too many easier routes.
>If you're /really/ worried about privacy and security, get your
>priorities straightened out. bin Laden didn't use cell phones, not
>because he was a techno-Luddite, but because he understood the risks
>of using them. You need to get a handle on all the risks of all the
>technology you use.

Interestingly enough, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned on his cell phone
for the first time in nearly a year and the NSA was able to pinpoint
his location and arrest him in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in March 2003.

--
Jerry ♔

Disclaimer: off-list followups get on-list replies or get ignored.
Please do not ignore the Reply-To header.
__________________________________________________________________


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


mailinglisten at hauke-laging

May 22, 2012, 12:50 PM

Post #29 of 45 (236 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
Am Di 22.05.2012, 14:46:03 schrieb Kevin Kammer:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging:
> > Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by
> > the participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
>
> Honestly now, do you think having a FAQ entry stops this topic
> resurrecting every few months?

No, but I don't see that as a problem. I think the question / proposal would
come up at about the same frequency but would end in one reply pointing at the
FAQ entry instead of now (do you want to count...?) emails.


Hauke
--
PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814
Attachments: signature.asc (0.54 KB)


wk at gnupg

May 22, 2012, 1:38 PM

Post #30 of 45 (235 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On Tue, 22 May 2012 20:40, rjh [at] sixdemonbag said:

> I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect
> Werner doesn't have the time. If he wants, I would be happy to take a
> stab at writing it.

Please go ahead. Plain text optionally with org-mode formatting.


Salam-Shalom,

Werner

--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


faramir.cl at gmail

May 22, 2012, 6:28 PM

Post #31 of 45 (233 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

El 22-05-2012 12:33, Jerry escribió:
...
> that sort of logic. What really amazed me though was that the OP
> wants security and yet he uses GMail. "GMail" and "security" are
> diametrically opposed concepts.

Why? If I send an encrypted message, it doesn't matter if I use
gmail, ISP-expensive-crap-mail or any other provider, the message
would still be encrypted end-to-end. Of course I'm not talking about
composing a message in the webmail editor and then encrypting it, but
about using a MUA, like Thunderbird, or maybe composing the message on
a text editor, encrypting it and pasting it on the message body (or
attaching the encrypted text file).

Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPvD0yAAoJEMV4f6PvczxA0BAH/A2prkdtv6LcIC6U1PQcId3v
BBbeLL8VeqBZq+XDYqBM1GP56BLH1CFWOXaSrEiIhPsLtaF6TkJLHfA5GEbSwQ+j
RkyI5MN1M88ZyTlvbdvm0uSiLzFXEmp9Jtqlwr58C29oTvI1JFwD9SxVKXmOwnSP
GHRgG7HBwSiBDFbSnjALE9nW6cDD1J6LwJaGvkD4tmKkJLqPzimoBnJ+o8P3TbdB
/AnhGlwaxlQQd0+5cxCiGBZ1NfZAZGmMWqD/1IE3bZMIs3hp/JkA4MDUwP5E8z25
N/nQPgoNb9iaFy0yozycZLEq4qDBHQxvLQNK79tSBe5+B2QJmPEYglxzserNfXA=
=o2WG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


faramir.cl at gmail

May 22, 2012, 6:41 PM

Post #32 of 45 (235 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

El 22-05-2012 8:34, david [at] gbenet escribió:
...
> Some say that all the power of the universe - and all the time its
> been in existence will not crack a 2048 bit key with a secure
> passphrase. So by the time the universe is well and

That is about if you secret key falls in the hands of somebody
wanting to use it. But factoring your public key to obtain a working
copy of your secret key is certainly something that may be done before
the end of time, and won't require dyson spheres to power the machine.
We know one day RSA 2048 will be broken... BUT, the question is: "will
it matter to us when it happens?". Maybe I will say "Finally! I will
be able to revoke that orphan key I uploaded to keyservers when I was
learning how to use GPG... if I could remember the UID it had".

We can use RSA 2048 and wait until something stronger is available,
or we can go RSA 3072 and be even safer. Or we can even go RSA 4096,
and people will say "that's an overkill!!!", all that without
modifying GnuPG.

Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPvEA5AAoJEMV4f6PvczxAMwoH+wWn0YnqWTjBYe3NIvYaGQyW
oIvUsAQu5B9xVRP1wN7f0OJFKoPevcaI0pU5erAs6RGpiHmd35oLYzxGEpsCWE26
YJ37m3mBJCGRk0aOkthT6ugDJ4fEHsm5toj2si9ItJNLq2374+8GMoz++c6Vpbf/
b/y/LaWO3eeZXhtdBCC8OSYKdZiUQ1DYBBFT6WAickgYQJ+hYtRhiq2JQq9SicCA
KkWEj/NVB7esOMVoVcrQzAxbivgqKwUyGjpOVTmPlnz2lx19t3j5TAucM9Vhrsab
wfY3u4dW6T6X24Pv6WEZmyb14JgEAsK8elehU4dyRTKA+OzOAZr1ihcNOODC/Yg=
=I24B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


rjh at sixdemonbag

May 22, 2012, 7:03 PM

Post #33 of 45 (235 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On 5/22/12 9:41 PM, Faramir wrote:
> [F]actoring your public key to obtain a working copy of your secret
> key is certainly something that may be done before the end of time,
> and won't require dyson spheres to power the machine.

I'm not so optimistic. Factoring is a hard problem. We may never
develop the technology to factor extremely large composites. Doing so
would require either (a) the development of extremely large-scale
quantum computing, (b) a mathematical proof of P=NP, or (c) classical
computers that run close to the thermodynamic limits of the universe.
There are no guarantees we will ever develop any of those three
technologies.

That said, no one has ever proven that the only way to break RSA is to
factor large composites. That's wholly conjecture, and there's some
evidence that it's not true.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


faramir.cl at gmail

May 22, 2012, 7:04 PM

Post #34 of 45 (233 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

El 22-05-2012 4:58, tim.kachao [at] gmail escribió:
...
> There are also estimates made that in the US 1 in 6 "protestors" is
> actually a government agent of one sort or another, dept of
> defense, homeland security, fbi what have you. And that exludes
> any thugs the bankers put in the crowd as privately hired types.

If that's the case, it is very likely you will send your messages
encrypted to the Super-Secure 32.768 bits RSA key belonging to
infiltrated agent... which of course won't have to break the key to
read it, because he already has the key.

Best Regards
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJPvEXKAAoJEMV4f6PvczxAcLkH/3dOjOpou//Auk4bIwizLodI
u6PvxBYW8P0rrdg3/1QUDWoj2mXA6AoaihbPe5LcmXH3fTgA06Y3i1zndzAfAPrD
7IGve7Km08ew6muutPmKnq0jk8nHhLJ6b1P1llD8ePky5nsppBVH0kT9gNFDQzbv
oRXLs4hcKS3DIs49BQnQswE8upgl72HcR9ozU95ptTsayewv1n57PZg+cj8o0dNT
N56kZ1YfJqZqx8uImV1fT8Oh658V5HDn3Fvx58s6M5r6WVbGynN9ZyPeL3uFNYpQ
wtZNHKK4Zc7XE/7n87IUy6/D8bH+rQTvbHWBiYa0rhs7H5JJqejEnkZMRSCPUsg=
=yKPa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


david at gbenet

May 23, 2012, 1:44 AM

Post #35 of 45 (238 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 22/05/12 19:40, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> On 5/22/12 2:26 PM, Hauke Laging wrote:
>> Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
>> participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
>
> I think so, yes. The question is who's going to write it? I suspect Werner doesn't
> have the time. If he wants, I would be happy to take a stab at writing it.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users [at] gnupg http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
A good idea Robert!

David


- --
“See the sanity of the man! No gods, no angels, no demons, no body. Nothing of the
kind.Stern, sane,every brain-cell perfect and complete even at the moment of death. No
delusion.” https://linuxcounter.net/user/512854.html - http://gbenet.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvKNjAAoJEOJpqm7flRExCLwH/RkpUwsTVZhXog8abFgosJqe
th4H1d3yejkbO1fxytyxwufQEZmzruz4SPpoWT2TcZ71SmznoSWXqWm5rQ53K1sD
WoRvGdutOiVRTghR1wS3bvsR+BcH2lUXQqvWqqiu0WYkEvKierEpR+rw+p5vrEsS
P2CQ8GqKDwNeipZn+7zcx5ZE2jykSk/Yzc47ptEv9PrKuIA4R7Gs8FqZ3Hbr4gCM
wWPz+YmjIlvl3YSncMOOWnMbFD2HqJhVB6kQN/9rGVUy3H09aqhbQSYFUwwns/tE
1AnrZ8VytiMJGUGt8il0KWZtTtHkqs1Rzn6nOrtHo2agxb0ELpECXDqFTnI1fLs=
=yP71
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


david at gbenet

May 23, 2012, 1:55 AM

Post #36 of 45 (233 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 22/05/12 19:46, Kevin Kammer wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:26:14PM +0200 Also sprach Hauke Laging:
>> Given the frequency of this discussion and the amount of effort takes by the
>> participants: Wouldn't it make sense to make this a FAQ entry?
>
> Honestly now, do you think having a FAQ entry stops this topic
> resurrecting every few months? Either someone will take issue with
> what is said in the FAQ, or they (most likely) do not read it at all.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
>
I think that there's so much stuff written out there - so many books and papers - so I've
decided to bring one more web site into show. I've got all the books - I want the site for
beginners and pro's - to bring papers books anything they wish - also have a mailing list so
people can practice their skills - and most important have no deadd links on thesite which
so many other sites have!

I'm still playing with wiki's at the moment - I want something that shares the enthusiasm
the commitment - and the fun of cryptology - where any one can add their two pennies worth.
I have been thinking about it for years and now I've decided to do something positive! What
is required is a focus point - trusted. Updated and contributed too.

It's finding the right wiki don't say mediawiki I installed it - and found I could not edit
anything - and it failed to recognise me! Oh well - back to the testing..........

David


- --
“See the sanity of the man! No gods, no angels, no demons, no body. Nothing of the
kind.Stern, sane,every brain-cell perfect and complete even at the moment of death. No
delusion.” https://linuxcounter.net/user/512854.html - http://gbenet.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPvKX8AAoJEOJpqm7flRExPxEH/AkUShX89LcveU9/IHhAMoqp
qCXCM2Ka28pt5ZPpw1D/hAaFHzqq115OtyZh7+5qUbDFO/yz7dEKfL3B6YKShIE/
hPHpCFTcxrzr11zFjvEekCNF6K2m6JuBCSv0jKL1s8sH0Ifj9ZJh8/dQx0NIjIyn
xJXfI88yKLSirRoYnzqe2oM1xtpTFZm29Wd/8p6BKevdv2zDTeCoYaI1rk/vRIF0
5R0GpiKMW57EzK2jSERH4WJtZFM4hYrodL3SkyqG7LXU4Ss21B/j+ODK5Bo64e+0
gtGfD//bFb6ZSx4OlTrslKbJia0kfsvVdhVg6/QCnNdBlYTaJ/6IiyOeA/oo/vQ=
=frJl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


expires2012 at rocketmail

May 27, 2012, 3:21 PM

Post #37 of 45 (237 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Tuesday 22 May 2012 at 6:10:05 PM, in
<mid:4FBBC86D.30405 [at] sixdemonbag>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:


> Not even Nicolai Ceaucescu's Romania or Erich
> Honecker's German Democratic Republic were able to get
> one in six people to serve as informers.

Planted informers numbering 1 in 6 of the "protesters" would still be
a statistically negligible percentage of the population at large.


- --
Best regards

MFPA mailto:expires2012 [at] rocketmail

Never interrupt me when I'm trying to interrupt you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQCVAwUBT8Ko+qipC46tDG5pAQq4VwQAwKtRlBkhlH50FC3Qx/dp6Qv4mAh3+bjb
xepFNDP3enfgt60RDCarrAqoi0HbZgeyk/zayLxbdLdRkE1u+3TPbkKLmX1iIJLF
9RkvTD0gtG8ExPou6HbHGZEKXbMjf7Tm+S0QVjHOMP5KxSFp0bpPcK8GM2hX65I/
ictKd01Eb2w=
=uOM8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


rjh at sixdemonbag

May 27, 2012, 7:12 PM

Post #38 of 45 (230 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

On 5/27/12 6:21 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Planted informers numbering 1 in 6 of the "protesters" would still
> be a statistically negligible percentage of the population at
> large.

That's actually not the problem. The problem is that if 1 in 6 people
is a plant, then you're going to have endless amounts of embarrassing
blue-on-blue -- one plant decides to do X to prove to his handlers that
he can Get Things Done(tm) and is worth the money he's getting paid, and
one plant, upon hearing that "oh my God, this guy is planning on doing
X!", does everything possible to block X in order to prove to *his*
handlers that he's preventing major incidents and is worth the money
he's getting paid.

The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The problem is
command and control.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iFYEAREIAAYFAk/C3wgACgkQI4Br5da5jhDmeQDgvcd0Sk0jvTFUqpY/o3dRCQWc
5CkyxhKJj30dFwDeJWwhWPxiMSPh2pk/hBJme6duMcRWi6J8QmrVsA==
=W90A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


benjamin at py-soft

May 28, 2012, 9:27 AM

Post #39 of 45 (234 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On 22 May 2012 09:58, <tim.kachao [at] gmail> wrote:

> I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years. From
> what I am reading, links below, I do not feel comfortable with the key
> length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults.
>

Use this patch to increase the maximum keysize in gpg2 to 8192 when using
the --expert option - intended for v2.0.17 but should be good for later
versions too.

--- g10/keygen.c 2011-01-15 16:32:30.000000000 +0000
+++ g10/keygen.c 2011-01-15 16:32:42.000000000 +0000
@@ -1774,7 +1774,7 @@
static unsigned
ask_keysize (int algo, unsigned int primary_keysize)
{
- unsigned int nbits, min, def = DEFAULT_STD_KEYSIZE, max=4096;
+ unsigned int nbits, min, def = DEFAULT_STD_KEYSIZE, max=8192;
int for_subkey = !!primary_keysize;
int autocomp = 0;



*--expert*

Allow the user to do certain nonsensical or "silly" things like signing an
expired or revoked key, or certain potentially incompatible things like
generating unusual key types. This also disables certain warning messages
about potentially incompatible actions. As the name implies, this option is
for experts only. If you don't fully understand the implications of what it
allows you to do, leave this off. --no-expert disables this option.


It's generally accepted that a big key is a "silly thing" so seems perfect
for inclusion in the expert option.

Ben


sam at samwhited

May 28, 2012, 2:53 PM

Post #40 of 45 (230 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On Mon, May 28, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Benjamin Donnachie
<benjamin [at] py-soft> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 09:58, <tim.kachao [at] gmail> wrote:
>>
>> I think it should be okay to dredge up this topic ever couple years.  From
>> what I am reading, links below,  I do not feel comfortable with the key
>> length and algorithmic security offered by GPG's defaults.
>
>
> Use this patch to increase the maximum keysize in gpg2 to 8192 when using
> the --expert option - intended for v2.0.17 but should be good for later
> versions too.

If you're going to add it to the --expert option it almost seems silly
to restrict it to 8192. Might as well pick an arbitrarily large number
since the point is to account for "silly" and/or experimental use
cases anyways.

2^32 should more than cover it (while we're being silly)
I read a paper a while back discussing key size in which they
generated extremely large keys on large clusters for some reason...
I'll have to see if I can dig it out.

—Sam

>
> --- g10/keygen.c        2011-01-15 16:32:30.000000000 +0000
> +++ g10/keygen.c        2011-01-15 16:32:42.000000000 +0000
> @@ -1774,7 +1774,7 @@
>  static unsigned
>  ask_keysize (int algo, unsigned int primary_keysize)
>  {
> -  unsigned int nbits, min, def = DEFAULT_STD_KEYSIZE, max=4096;
> +  unsigned int nbits, min, def = DEFAULT_STD_KEYSIZE, max=8192;
>    int for_subkey = !!primary_keysize;
>    int autocomp = 0;
>
>
>
> --expert
>
> Allow the user to do certain nonsensical or "silly" things like signing an
> expired or revoked key, or certain potentially incompatible things like
> generating unusual key types. This also disables certain warning messages
> about potentially incompatible actions. As the name implies, this option is
> for experts only. If you don't fully understand the implications of what it
> allows you to do, leave this off. --no-expert disables this option.
>
>
> It's generally accepted that a big key is a "silly thing" so seems perfect
> for inclusion in the expert option.
>
> Ben
>


--
Sam Whited
pub 4096R/EC2C9934

SamWhited.com
sam [at] samwhited
404.492.6008

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


expires2012 at rocketmail

May 30, 2012, 1:14 PM

Post #41 of 45 (215 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
Hi


On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
<mid:4FC2DF08.4020507 [at] sixdemonbag>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:


> The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
> problem is command and control.

That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.

As a thought experiment, what happens when all the "real" protesters
have gone on to something else and plants from various agencies make
up 100%?


--
Best regards

MFPA mailto:expires2012 [at] rocketmail

When it comes to humility, I'm the greatest.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


rjh at sixdemonbag

May 30, 2012, 2:30 PM

Post #42 of 45 (216 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On 05/30/2012 04:14 PM, MFPA wrote:
> That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.

And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world would you ever
need a 1 in 6 penetration rate? I'm sorry, but this is rapidly
descending down the rabbit-hole of conspiracy theory -- where every plea
for sanity and rationality is met by an expansion of the conspiracy
theory in order to explain why sanity and rationality don't work in this
particular case.

The world is not _The Illuminatus! Trilogy_.

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


jeandavid8 at verizon

May 30, 2012, 2:45 PM

Post #43 of 45 (214 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
> <mid:4FC2DF08.4020507 [at] sixdemonbag>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>
>
>> The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
>> problem is command and control.
>
> That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.
>
> As a thought experiment, what happens when all the "real" protesters
> have gone on to something else and plants from various agencies make
> up 100%?
>
>
My mother once told me that it was easy in the late 1930s and 1940s for
Communist Party members to identify the FBI informants. The informants
were the only ones who paid their dues. Real communists could not afford it.

--
.~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
/V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
/( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
^^-^^ 17:40:01 up 1 day, 2:00, 4 users, load average: 1.26, 1.36, 1.35

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


hka at qbs

May 30, 2012, 5:33 PM

Post #44 of 45 (216 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
On Wednesday 30 of May 2012 21:14:42 MFPA wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> On Monday 28 May 2012 at 3:12:24 AM, in
>
> <mid:4FC2DF08.4020507 [at] sixdemonbag>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
> > The problem isn't the fraction of the population. The
> > problem is command and control.
>
> That will always be a problem if the planting is uncoordinated.
>
> As a thought experiment, what happens when all the "real" protesters
> have gone on to something else and plants from various agencies make
> up 100%?

Ahh, the Memoirs Found in a Bathtub! Well written book, quite captivating.
--
Hubert Kario
QBS - Quality Business Software
02-656 Warszawa, ul. Ksawerw 30/85
tel. +48 (22) 646-61-51, 646-74-24
www.qbs.com.pl

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


expires2012 at rocketmail

Jun 1, 2012, 6:06 PM

Post #45 of 45 (213 views)
Permalink
Re: Some people say longer keys are silly. I think they should be supported by gpg. [In reply to]
Hi


On Wednesday 30 May 2012 at 10:30:56 PM, in
<mid:4FC69190.5000702 [at] sixdemonbag>, Robert J. Hansen wrote:


> And if the planting *is* coordinated, why in the world
> would you ever need a 1 in 6 penetration rate?


Whilst it would be *possible* for the various different departments
and agencies mentioned by the OP to coordinate their efforts, that
seemed so far-fetched to me as to not merit consideration.


--
Best regards

MFPA mailto:expires2012 [at] rocketmail

No man ever listened himself out of a job


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users [at] gnupg
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All GnuPG users RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.