Re: and for my first mistake...

John W. Moore III escribió:
> Faramir wrote:
> 
>>   I don't know what kind of ID document is both trust worth and commonly
>> used in USA.
> 
> Easy frame of Reference: 2 pieces of Government Issue ID with Picture.
> This includes all levels of Government; State & Federal.  Most U.S.
> Citizens do not have a Passport but 96% have either a Driver's License
> or State ID Card.  They may also have an Employer ID with photo but how
> do You tell.  You don't know and this is currently a fiercely debated
> Topic on the CAcert-Policy List.

  Well, in the Support section there is no debate, but I have seen some
doubts about what will be the policy... but that's CAcert...

> My Opinion, You are /only/ Signing an OpenPGP Key so accept whatever You
> feel comfortable with.  There is No Globally issued/accepted ID and I
> pray there never is.  If You are that paranoid, A-S-K for whatever You
> feel comfortable with and if You are denied feel comfortable with
> walking away without exchanging Sigs.

  Yes... that is true, and also, passports from different countries look
different... But my question was focused in what is common use, and
still widely available at USA, like the chilean ID Card is in Chile...

> Even if You Sign My Key then I am *not* obligated to Sign Yours.  It is

  Of course not, everybody has the right to decide about that...

Re: and for my first mistake...

Faramir wrote:
> The problem is most people don't really know (including me) how does 
> encryption really work. I mean, we hear 64 bits WAP is easily broken,
> by just watching packages being transmitted. Then we have 128 bits
> WEP, and it is supposed to be better... but some people say it is
> still vulnerable...

Those are protocols, not encryption algorithms.

64-bit WEP is easily broken because of mathematical weaknesses in the
protocol.  The underlying algorithm, RC4, is believed strong when used
properly.  WEP's problem is it doesn't use it properly.

128-bit WPA has its own problems -- problems of protocols, not algorithms.

The OpenPGP protocol is fairly well-designed, even with its many warts
and flaws.  It uses encryption algorithms in ways that are unsurprising
(save for the weird CFB mode) and extremely orthodox.

RSA, DSA and Elgamal are encryption algorithms, not protocols.  Used
correctly, any of them in 2kbit strength is going to be a lot more than
you need.

> So it is easy to see OpenPGP keys and "feel" it follows the same
> principle.

Right, and this is my biggest problem with most forms of computer
security.  Computers are nothing more nor less than phenomenally capable
engines of mathematics -- but the average person cannot think
mathematically.  Thus, rather than dealing with computers on the basis

Re: Help - Taum Tanlon

What could cause this?
I'll sign this and then look at it and see if it's 'good' or 'bad'

Taum

Charly Avital wrote:
|
| Signature does not verify:
|
| Error - signature verification failed
| gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 30 13:42:01 2008 EDT using DSA key ID 74DE64F6
| gpg: BAD signature from "Taum Hanlon <taum.hanlon <at> gmail.com>"
|
|
| -----BEGIN GPG OUTPUT-----
| gpg: Signature made Mon Jun 30 13:42:01 2008 EDT using DSA key ID 74DE64F6
| gpg: BAD signature from "Taum Hanlon <taum.hanlon <at> gmail.com>"
| -----END GPG OUTPUT-----
|
|
| Regards,
| Charly
|
| _______________________________________________
| Enigmail mailing list
| Enigmail <at> mozdev.org
| https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail

Re: Help - Taum Tanlon

I followed the directions and simply created the new key pair, using the 
default type (but the longer bit length because I hadn't read Robert 
Hansen's explanation yet), and then I uploaded it to the key server by 
right clicking on the key to uploading to a keyserver.

So what did I do wrong, and is there a way to remedy the situation or do 
I need to revoke the key I uploaded and make a new one?

Taum

Taum Hanlon wrote:
| hmmm... now that I look at that sent message I can see 'signature 
verification failed'.
| So I sent a signed message to myself and it has a green pen and says 
'good signature'.
|
| What could cause this?
| I'll sign this and then look at it and see if it's 'good' or 'bad'
|
| Taum
|
|
| Charly Avital wrote:
| |
| | Signature does not verify:
| |

Re: and for my first mistake...

Robert J. Hansen wrote:

> Right, and this is my biggest problem with most forms of computer
> security.  Computers are nothing more nor less than phenomenally capable
> engines of mathematics -- but the average person cannot think
> mathematically.  Thus, rather than dealing with computers on the basis
> of facts and reasoned analysis, people deal with computers according to
> superstition.

All Computers are basically very large [comparatively] Calculators.  I
remember a High School Friend whose Father was a Southern Bell Attorney
and He had a prototype LED screen calculator that would only support the
functions of Add/Subtract.  Very nifty and fascinating.  Estimated cost
of the simple unit Jack Berry had was $600 in 1969.  Back then, when
students in High School had to think 'mathematically' the scariest thing
was a "word problem" on a Math Test.  The 'math' was easy but the
discerning of which words fit what part of the formula was where most
failed.  Math = Logic = Math.  The calculator has killed logical
thinking, IMlessthanHO!!  GIGO applies more today than I've ever before
seen. [GIGO = Garbage In, Garbage Out]

>> Certainly, if I go to USA, I would be carrying a passport, but I
>> don't know if USA citizens use to have a passport, if they have never
>> travelled outside USA.
> 
> Only about one American in six has a passport.  Up until very recently,
> very few Americans needed one; we could travel in Canada and Mexico with
> just our driver's license for ID.  That meant we could travel from Guam
> to Maine, from the North Pole down to Cozumel, without a passport.  With

Re: Help - Taum Tanlon

Taum Hanlon wrote:
> That is also giving 'signature verification failed'.

> So what did I do wrong, and is there a way to remedy the situation or do 
> I need to revoke the key I uploaded and make a new one?

I cannot strongly enough encourage You to *not* Revoke/Re-Generate
another Key.  Work with this existing Key until You learn/discover the
surrounding issues.  This how My understanding of 'Learning' works.  :-\

Encrypt something to Me [or anyone else] and see if the Message can be
Read/Decrypted.  Send the Key as an attachment or Link beforehand to
make sure that the Key in in the Recipient's Keyring.

JOHN ;)
Timestamp: Tuesday 01 Jul 2008, 00:12  --400 (Eastern Daylight Time)

Re: Help - Taum Tanlon

Hello,

> What could cause this?
> I'll sign this and then look at it and see if it's 'good' or 'bad'

The signature verification fails but I suppose this is no error of your
key itself but rather a misconfiguration of your mail client. I don't
know about the correct settings for charsets or encodings but you could
try two things. First completely avoid HTML mails. Second you could try
to use PGP/MIME instead of inline signatures.

Greets
Alex

--

-- 
'With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured,
the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all
irrevocably.' (Jean-Luc Picard, quoting Judge Aaron Satie)
*** GnuPG-FP: 02C8 A590 7FE5 CA5F 3601  D1D5 8FBA 7744 CC87 10D0 ***

_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail <at> mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail

Re: Help - Best Algorithm and Different Encryptions Available

_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail <at> mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail

Re: Help - error message on posts i make to list

_______________________________________________
Enigmail mailing list
Enigmail <at> mozdev.org
https://www.mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/enigmail

annoying DOS window

Hi!

I've just started to use Enigmail on Windows and up to now I've just used it to sign messages. Whenever
Enigmail calls gnupg it does this as a dos/console call which makes a DOS window pop up briefly. On my
machine it does this as a full screen aplication which takes several seconds since the monitor have to
switch resolution. I have been searching for a fix for this since it makes flipping through sent messages
quite cumbersome, but came up with nothing.

Is there a way to suppress the DOS window to run in the background, or if that isn't possible, how do I change it
to run in a window or minimized?

Thanks,
Mr Smith

      ___________________________________________________
Sök efter kärleken!
Hitta din tvillingsjäl på Yahoo! Dejting: http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;185753627;24584539;x?http://se.meetic.yahoo.net/index.php?mtcmk=148783