Re: GPG problems

On Sun, Dec 04, 2022 at 04:28:00PM +0200, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2022-12-04 12:05:56+, Alain D. D. Williams wrote: > > > Part of the problem is the hopeless message "Server indicated a > > failure" which says little. Any idea how I could get something more > > informative ? > > You can chan

Re: GPG problems

* 2022-12-04 12:05:56+, Alain D. D. Williams wrote: > Part of the problem is the hopeless message "Server indicated a > failure" which says little. Any idea how I could get something more > informative ? You can change debug logging level. Edit ~/.gnupg/dirmngr.conf file and write something l

Re: GPG problems

On Sat, Dec 03, 2022 at 02:59:41PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote: > keys.openpgp.org should be operational. It responds to ping. > > Also have a look at > https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2021-June/065261.html . No, that is not the issue. It works on Debian 11 but not Debian 10, both

Re: GPG problems

On Sat, Dec 3, 2022 at 12:42 PM Alain D D Williams wrote: > > I am running Debian 10 (buster). I generated a new key that I wanted to > upload, > but it fails: > > $ gpg --send-keys 0xBA366B977C06BAF7 > gpg: sending key 0xBA366B977C06BAF7 to hkps://keys.openpgp.org > gpg: keyserver send failed:

Re: gpg says no user ID

On 16/11/2022 13:55, Thomas George wrote: I am giving up and will proceed with the netinst. Thanks everyone for the many helpful comments and recommendations. I stripped the spaces from the fingerprint and equated it RSA key. They matched. So every thing is correct until the last step Dragon

Re: gpg says no user ID

Good to let users of gpg know credentials have no web of trust so verification of credentials will remain limited until further public and official notice. Public and official notice ought to include an announcement email to all debian email lists in the event these credentials are ever added to a

Re: gpg says no user ID

I am giving up and will proceed with the netinst. Thanks everyone for the many helpful comments and recommendations. I stripped the spaces from the fingerprint and equated it RSA key. They matched. So every thing is correct until the last step Dragonette:/home/tom/Downloads/debian# gpg2 --ver

Re: gpg says no user ID

Hi, i managed to produce a rare self-misattribution by copy+paste: - the program gpg writes about the Debian CD signing key DA87E80D6294BE9B : > > > WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > > > There is

Re: gpg says no user ID

Hi, the program gpg writes about the Debian CD signing key DA87E80D6294BE9B : > > > WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! > > > There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner I wrote: > > This is a security usability problem. How is a non-expert to know that

Re: gpg says no user ID

Hi Thomas, Here's some feedback while looking at things from 10,000 feet. There are several problems with processes and documentation. On Wed, Nov 16, 2022 at 3:14 AM Thomas Schmitt wrote: > > Thomas George wrote: > > I am going to erase every thing I have done and start over. > > There's no ne

Re: gpg says no user ID

On 11/16/22 09:13, Thomas Schmitt wrote: Hi, Thomas George wrote: I am going to erase every thing I have done and start over. There's no need for starting over. The SHA512SUM file is meanwhile authenticated by your run of: gpg2 --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS [...]    gpg: Good signa

Re: gpg says no user ID

Hi, Thomas George wrote: > I am going to erase every thing I have done and start over. There's no need for starting over. The SHA512SUM file is meanwhile authenticated by your run of: > > gpg2 --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS > > [...] > >   gpg: Good signature from "Debian CD signing key >

Re: gpg says no user ID

Am 15.11.2022 um 19:20 schrieb Jeffrey Walton: > It's not you. The whole key server architecture is a mess nowadays. > > Jeff Thank you, Jeff, for your explanation and hints. Just one additional viewpoint from me (an afficionado for data protection) ;-) As i see it, the european law suffers fro

Re: gpg says no user ID

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 1:01 PM DdB wrote: > ... > i just experienced the same problem, same difficulty understanding the > man pages. Googling suggested to try a different keyserver. > I had to try several ... until i found one, that succeeded. > Apparently, the cause was found to be in the rules

Re: gpg says no user ID

Am 14.11.2022 um 23:17 schrieb Thomas George: > I am still trying to do a fully verified installation of debian-11.5.0. > > gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS responded with DF98...BE9B > > gpg --recv-keys DF98...BE9B responded key DF98...BE9B: new key but > contains no user ID - skipped. >

Re: gpg says no user ID

Hi, Thomas George wrote: > gpg2 --verify SHA512SUMS.sign debian-11.5.0-amd64-netinst.iso > ...gpg: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key Consider to re-read my mail of yesterday: Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 09:19:29 +0100 Subject: Re: No Public Key https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2022/1

Re: gpg says no user ID

On Tue, Nov 15, 2022 at 12:22 PM Thomas George wrote: > > Close, almost there. At the end something goes wrong. Here is the output: > > gpg2 keyserver keyring.debian.org --recv DF98...BE9B > > gpg: /root/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trust.db created > > gpg: key DA87E80D6294BE9B: public key "Debia

Re: gpg says no user ID

Close, almost there.  At the end something goes wrong. Here is the output: gpg2 keyserver keyring.debian.org --recv DF98...BE9B    gpg: /root/.gnupg/trustdb.gpg: trust.db created    gpg: key DA87E80D6294BE9B: public key "Debian CD signing  key " imported    gpg: Total number processed: 1   

Re: gpg says no user ID

On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 05:17:25PM -0500, Thomas George wrote: > I am still trying to do a fully verified installation of debian-11.5.0. > > gpg --verify SHA512SUMS.sign SHA512SUMS responded with DF98...BE9B > > gpg --recv-keys DF98...BE9B responded key DF98...BE9B: new key but contains > no user

Re: gpg says no user ID

On debian, have you got a gpg2 executable? If so, that executable may be more current and if so possibly work better. Jude "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author, 1940) . On Mon, 14 Nov 2022, T

Re: gpg-agent, smartcard remembers PIN forever

* 2022-02-15 07:24:51-0500, Henning Follmann wrote: > I do have my private keys on a smartcard. Everything works fine, > but I noticed that gpg-agent does not forget the PIN of the card > It just remembers it forever (as long as the card remains inserted). > I have to physically remove the smartc

Re: gpg-agent, smartcard remembers PIN forever

On Tue, 15 Feb 2022 at 23:25, Henning Follmann wrote: > I do have my private keys on a smartcard. Everything works fine, > but I noticed that gpg-agent does not forget the PIN of the card > It just remembers it forever (as long as the card remains inserted). > I have to physically remove the smar

Re: GPG-Fehler mit debmirror und wheezy-proposed-updates

Good catch. It seems that sometime after I wrote this email a new signature was generated that is no longer generating errors so I guess it was a temporary issue. -T > On Aug 2, 2018, at 7:28 PM, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > > ADD6B7E2 is an encryption subkey. As this is not used, it was revoke

Re: GPG-Fehler mit debmirror und wheezy-proposed-updates

Todd Fleisher writes: > I’m seeing this as well and suspect it is due to the GPG sub-key > ADD6B7E2 having been revoked. I am not sure why this has been done, > perhaps ftpmaster can provide some context? ADD6B7E2 is an encryption subkey. As this is not used, it was revoked later (in 2014). New

Re: GPG-Fehler mit debmirror und wheezy-proposed-updates

Hi Christoph, I’m seeing this as well and suspect it is due to the GPG sub-key ADD6B7E2 having been revoked. I am not sure why this has been done, perhaps ftpmaster can provide some context? -T

Re: GPG error when trying to update Lenny

On Fri 18 May 2018 at 08:08:49 (+0900), Mark Fletcher wrote: > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 03:20:09PM +, Marie-Madeleine Gullibert wrote: > > Hello to all, > > > > I'm relatively new to Debian. I'm helping out a small organization that has > > a library server installed on Debian to update their

Re: GPG error when trying to update Lenny

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 03:20:09PM +, Marie-Madeleine Gullibert wrote: > Hello to all, > > I'm relatively new to Debian. I'm helping out a small organization that has a > library server installed on Debian to update their system. They run currently > on Debian lenny so I'm first trying to u

Re: GPG error when trying to update Lenny

On 5/16/2018 5:20 PM, Marie-Madeleine Gullibert wrote: Hello to all, I'm relatively new to Debian. I'm helping out a small organization that has a library server installed on Debian to update their system. They run currently on Debian lenny so I'm first trying to upgrade the Debian system, but

Re: GPG error when trying to update Lenny

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 03:20:09PM +, Marie-Madeleine Gullibert wrote: > Hello to all, > > I'm relatively new to Debian. I'm helping out a small organization that has a > library server installed on Debian to update their system. They run curren

Re: GPG error when trying to update Lenny

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 03:20:09PM +, Marie-Madeleine Gullibert wrote: > Fetched 235kB in 0s (301kB/s) > Reading package lists... Done > W: GPG error: http://archive.debian.org lenny Release: The following > signatures were invalid: KEYEXPIRED 1520281423 KEYEXPIRED 1337087218 > W: GPG error: h

Re: GPG and keyring issue

On 4/10/2018 4:33 PM, J.W. Foster wrote: I just installed a new Debian 9 system on a reformatted disk in a multidisk system. I used the Netinstall cd from Debian. Installation went ok and I am sending this from the system. Problem is I tried to add the contrib and non-free repos to synaptic i.

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

On 03/14/2018 09:14 PM, Daniel Bareiro wrote: > On 14/03/18 03:26, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >> Just run `gpg --refresh-keys` from time to time. > > Thanks for the suggestion. I have updated my keyring: > > GNUPG seems to have found 9 new signatures ('firmas' in spanish) from > Richard. > > The o

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

Hi, Ansgar. On 14/03/18 03:26, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: >>> You can change the expiry date of your own key, but for other people to >>> be able to see it and avoid having your key show up as expired, you must >>> publish the new (key? signature? not sure...) and others must fetch it >>> before the

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

Richard Hector writes: > On 14/03/18 15:50, likcoras wrote: >> You can change the expiry date of your own key, but for other people to >> be able to see it and avoid having your key show up as expired, you must >> publish the new (key? signature? not sure...) and others must fetch it >> before the

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

On 3/14/2018 4:20 AM, Richard Hector wrote: On 14/03/18 15:50, likcoras wrote: On 03/14/2018 11:39 AM, Richard Hector wrote: And if I search for my key here: https://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0xb4a2f08fec70168d ... I can see that there is a self-sig with the ex

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

On 14/03/18 15:50, likcoras wrote: > On 03/14/2018 11:39 AM, Richard Hector wrote: >> And if I search for my key here: >> >> https://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0xb4a2f08fec70168d >> >> ... I can see that there is a self-sig with the expiry date Daniel >> mentioned, bu

Re: GPG key expiry questions?

On 03/14/2018 11:39 AM, Richard Hector wrote: > And if I search for my key here: > > https://pgp.surfnet.nl/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0xb4a2f08fec70168d > > ... I can see that there is a self-sig with the expiry date Daniel > mentioned, but also one for the one I'm seeing. You c

Re: gpg fools amanda 3.5

Kamil Jońca wrote: > "Always" I have encrypted amand backup with gpg. > Recently, after upgrade amanda to version 1:3.5-2 I noticed that amanda > 'does not work' - it hangs for (near) infinity; no files in holding > directory etc. > As googling gives me no useful results, I assumed that it is rath

Re: GPG-Error with debmirror and wheezy-proposed-updates

On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 05:14:20PM +0200, Christoph Pleger wrote: > [GNUPG:] NEWSIG > [GNUPG:] KEY_CONSIDERED A1BD8E9D78F7FE5C3E65D8AF8B48AD6246925553 0 > [GNUPG:] KEY_CONSIDERED A1BD8E9D78F7FE5C3E65D8AF8B48AD6246925553 0 > [GNUPG:] BADSIG 8B48AD6246925553 Debian Archive Automatic Signing Key > (7

Re: gpg finds no secret key when logging remotely after upgrade to stretch

Ricardo Yanez wrote: > Is there a way to instruct gpg to request the passphrase in the > old-fashioned way, in the terminal, when logged-in remotely via SSH? I did something similar recently for to be able to build and sign packages automatically in chroot, but it can be useful to you as well. I

Re: gpg finds no secret key when logging remotely after upgrade to stretch

Ricardo Yanez [2017-07-11 11:00:42-07] wrote: > Is there a way to instruct gpg to request the passphrase in the > old-fashioned way, in the terminal, when logged-in remotely via SSH? It's possible with gpg's option "--pinentry-mode loopback". It's still technically the "new" way: secret key opera

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Teemu Likonen wrote: > > If you want to prevent gpg-agent from starting you can do it with this: > > $ systemctl --user mask --now gpg-agent.service gpg-agent.socket \ > gpg-agent-ssh.socket gpg-agent-extra.socket \ > gpg-agent-browser.socket As I was unsure where the syslog

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Hi. On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 17:05:42 + Bob Brewer wrote: > Reco wrote: > > > Hi. > > > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:40:27 + > > Bob Brewer wrote: > > > >> I'm running up-to-date Debian Sid and since gnupg-agent was upgraded from > >> gnupg-agent:amd64 (2.1.17-3), I have been seeing t

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:40:27 + > Bob Brewer wrote: > >> I'm running up-to-date Debian Sid and since gnupg-agent was upgraded from >> gnupg-agent:amd64 (2.1.17-3), I have been seeing the following error in >> syslog: >> >> gpg-agent[7545]: can't connect to the SCdaemon

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Teemu Likonen [2017-01-27 19:06:13+02] wrote: > See /usr/share/doc/gnupg/README.Debian Sorry, that should be /usr/share/doc/gnupg-agent/README.Debian -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-.. // // PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 /// signature.asc De

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Bob Brewer [2017-01-27 15:40:27Z] wrote: > I'm running up-to-date Debian Sid and since gnupg-agent was upgraded from > gnupg-agent:amd64 (2.1.17-3), I have been seeing the following error in > syslog: > > gpg-agent[7545]: can't connect to the SCdaemon: IPC connect call failed > > this is repeate

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Reco wrote: > Hi. > > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:40:27 + > Bob Brewer wrote: > >> I'm running up-to-date Debian Sid and since gnupg-agent was upgraded from >> gnupg-agent:amd64 (2.1.17-3), I have been seeing the following error in >> syslog: >> >> gpg-agent[7545]: can't connect to the SCdaemon

Re: gpg-agent spamming syslog

Hi. On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 15:40:27 + Bob Brewer wrote: > I'm running up-to-date Debian Sid and since gnupg-agent was upgraded from > gnupg-agent:amd64 (2.1.17-3), I have been seeing the following error in > syslog: > > gpg-agent[7545]: can't connect to the SCdaemon: IPC connect call

Re: GPG error: http://approx wheezy/updates Release

David Christensen wrote: > I seem to be having trouble getting security updates. Is this a problem > with my client system, my Approx server, the Release file on the Debian > servers, or something else? > ... > W: A error occurred during the signature verification. The repository is not > updated

Re: GPG error: http://approx wheezy/updates Release

debian-user: It's working today: 2015-02-01 08:43:44 root@cd2533 ~ # apt-get update Hit http://approx wheezy Release.gpg Get:1 http://approx wheezy/updates Release.gpg [836 B] Hit http://approx wheezy Release Get:2 http://approx wheezy/updates Release [102 kB] Hit http://approx wheezy/main Trans

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

Yes, that solution is more secure, as I think 02 окт. 2014 г. 1:08 пользователь "Floris" написал: > Op Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:18:10 +0200 schreef Valery Mamonov < > valerymamo...@gmail.com>: > > > > 2014-10-01 11:02 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : > >> severity 647001 important >> thanks >> >> Hi, >>

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

Op Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:18:10 +0200 schreef Valery Mamonov : 2014-10-01 11:02 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : severity 647001 important thanks Hi, Valery Mamonov writes: 2014-10-01 3:30 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : Valery Mamonov writes: > I'm experiencing some troubles with updating my

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

2014-10-01 11:02 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : > severity 647001 important > thanks > > Hi, > > Valery Mamonov writes: > > 2014-10-01 3:30 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : > >> Valery Mamonov writes: > >> > I'm experiencing some troubles with updating my debian machine. > >> > After aptitude update i

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

severity 647001 important thanks Hi, Valery Mamonov writes: > 2014-10-01 3:30 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : >> Valery Mamonov writes: >> > I'm experiencing some troubles with updating my debian machine. >> > After aptitude update i'm having multiple errors like these: >> > >> > W: GPG error: htt

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

2014-10-01 3:30 GMT+04:00 Ansgar Burchardt : > Valery Mamonov writes: > > I'm experiencing some troubles with updating my debian machine. > > After aptitude update i'm having multiple errors like these: > > > > W: GPG error: http://deb.ianod.es unstable InRelease: The following > > signatures cou

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

Valery Mamonov writes: > I'm experiencing some troubles with updating my debian machine. > After aptitude update i'm having multiple errors like these: > > W: GPG error: http://deb.ianod.es unstable InRelease: The following > signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available:

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

2014-09-30 14:24 GMT+04:00 Lisi Reisz : > On Tuesday 30 September 2014 11:14:52 Valery Mamonov wrote: > > Only "third-party" repositories are affected. > > You have added the third party keys? > > Lisi > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "un

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

On Tuesday 30 September 2014 11:14:52 Valery Mamonov wrote: > Only "third-party" repositories are affected. You have added the third party keys? Lisi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: gpg errors NO_PUBKEY after aptitude update

2014-09-27 18:10 GMT+04:00 Valery Mamonov : > NO_PUBKEY 54422A4B98AB5139 removing contents of /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/*.gpg, /etc/apt/trusted.gpg and manual adding missing keys didn't work. Only "third-party" repositories are affected. -- Best regards, Valery Mamonov.

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 07:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > For one thing, I don't think the real JS would send to me as well as > > to the list. > > I wouldn't do it on purpose, anyway :) Or send top-posting HTML formatted mails. Or ... The fake to be Jerry wasn't done very good, but it anyway c

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 6/10/2014 6:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >>>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkroo

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/10/2014 6:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:51:16 +1000 >> >>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >>> From: ros...@gmail.com >>> CC: deb

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/10/2014 6:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >>> From: ros...@gmail.com >>> CC: debian-us

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:51:16 +1000 > >> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >> From: ros...@gmail.com >> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> To: debian-user@lists.debian.o

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >> From: ros...@gmail.com >> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > &

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/08/2014 06:20 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 08 iun 14, 23:37:40, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >>> >>> Could you please elaborate on this? >> >> What should I explain? That signing us

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Du, 08 iun 14, 23:37:40, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Could you please elaborate on this? > > What should I explain? That signing usually is unwanted? It's usually > unwanted, because there is absolutely no reason to sign mails to a > m

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 08 iun 14, 22:05:03, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > I will not sign my emails to mailing lists, however, you're mistaken, > > several people subscribed to Debian user sign there mails. Those people > > are not blacklisted, perhaps ther

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Du, 08 iun 14, 22:05:03, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I will not sign my emails to mailing lists, however, you're mistaken, > several people subscribed to Debian user sign there mails. Those people > are not blacklisted, perhaps there are kangaroos or penguins in their > kitchen, I don't know, anywa

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Chris Angelico wrote: ...but I would consider it pretty silly if we had to concern ourselves with the possibility that some other debian-user contributor would show up on our doorsteps with an axe. Hm. We should not have to be considering such ridiculous possibilities.

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/8/2014 4:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> But hopefully it won't ever come to the point of mattering. It really >>> is silly when people start trying to spoof other people's emails. >>> >> >> Chris, >> >> It's more than silly. In many co

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> But hopefully it won't ever come to the point of mattering. It really >> is silly when people start trying to spoof other people's emails. >> > > Chris, > > It's more than silly. In many countries (including the United States), > it can be c

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/8/2014 1:20 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU > wrote: >> On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >>> On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU >>> >>> Okay, not many people listed;

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 17:53 +0200, Bzzz wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 > Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > > > How about Australia? > > Not allowed: if you sign your e-mails,

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> > >> > https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU >> >> Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I >> don't know

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

Ahoj, Dňa Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:53:28 +0200 Bzzz napísal: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 > Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > > > How about Australia? > > Not allowed: if you sign you

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 02:07:46 +1000 Andrew McGlashan wrote: Hello Andrew, >Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I >don't know any of them personally. You don't have to. So long as there's one close enough to you for it to be convenient to arrange a meeting those pe

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU > > Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I > don't know any of them personally. That's not necessary, the point of

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 09 iun 14, 01:43:28, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> >> And the fingerprint? > > $ gpg --fingerprint EF22341C > pub 4096R/EF22341C 2013-07-28 > Key fingerprint = E44E B88C E21B 858E 3639 7AA4 FFC7 8544 EF22 341C > uid Andrei

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Lu, 09 iun 14, 01:43:28, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > And the fingerprint? $ gpg --fingerprint EF22341C pub 4096R/EF22341C 2013-07-28 Key fingerprint = E44E B88C E21B 858E 3639 7AA4 FFC7 8544 EF22 341C uid Andrei Mircea POPESCU sub 4096R/5D7DFF29 2013-07-28 > I wro

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > How about Australia? Not allowed: if you sign your e-mails, they'll blacklist you, you'll suffer a kangaroo invasion in your

Re: GPG error with ftp.debian.org

On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 4:01 PM, darkestkhan wrote: > For few days now I'm receiving following error when updating sid: > > $ sudo aptitude update > Building old list of packages... [done] > Building old list of available updates... [done] > Building old list of watched packages... [done] > Get: 1

Re: gpg signature & ssh keys

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi, On 25.07.2012 15:50, Umarzuki Mochlis wrote: > hi, > > can my gpg signature & ssh keys (public & private) be imported to > a new installation of debian just by synching my home folder (same > user as in the new system)? I think that they can,

Re: gpg signature & ssh keys

2012/7/25 Gaël DONVAL : > >> can my gpg signature & ssh keys (public & private) be imported to a >> new installation of debian just by synching my home folder (same user >> as in the new system)? >> > > Yes. Your public and private ssh keys should be in ~/.ssh > Your gpg keys should be in ~/.gnupg

Re: gpg signature & ssh keys

> can my gpg signature & ssh keys (public & private) be imported to a > new installation of debian just by synching my home folder (same user > as in the new system)? > Yes. Your public and private ssh keys should be in ~/.ssh Your gpg keys should be in ~/.gnupg As long as you copy these two fo

Re: gpg signature & ssh keys

On 25/07/2012 8:50 PM, Umarzuki Mochlis wrote: hi, can my gpg signature & ssh keys (public & private) be imported to a new installation of debian just by synching my home folder (same user as in the new system)? thanks. The GPG keys should be storedin ~/.gpg and the SSH keys in ~/.ssh so as

Re: GPG - secret key not available?

Csanyi Pal writes: > However, I have two keys, so maybe I should set up the primary key? It doesn't matter, still get the messages: signfile piklab_0.16.0-1.dsc gpg: skipped "Csanyi Pal ": secret key is not available gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key is not available dpkg-buildpack

Re: GPG - secret key not available?

Jon Dowland writes: > On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 06:52:30PM +0200, Csanyi Pal wrote: >> gpg: skipped "Csanyi Pal ": secret key not >> available >> gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available > > Please include the command you actually typed. You probably mean here what command I used

Re: GPG - secret key not available?

On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 06:52:30PM +0200, Csanyi Pal wrote: > gpg: skipped "Csanyi Pal ": secret key not available > gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: secret key not available Please include the command you actually typed. > > (note also that if you are just starting to play around, it would be > >

Re: GPG - secret key not available?

Jon Dowland writes: > On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:51:09PM +0200, Csanyi Pal wrote: [snip] > I suspect that's what you are doing wrong; you should export the > public half rather than the secret. It's the public half which is used > by others to verify your sigs. gpg: skipped "Csanyi Pal ": secr

Re: GPG - secret key not available?

On Tue, Jul 03, 2012 at 04:51:09PM +0200, Csanyi Pal wrote: > Hi, > > I did run the > gpg --gen-key > > command and I have the secret key: > > gpg -K > /home/csanyipal/.gnupg/secring.gpg > -- > sec 2048D/CD3E2F9A 2012-07-01 > [snip] > > I exported this key in b

Re: GPG Error: KEYEXPIRED 1338072862

Hello Frank, Frank Lanitz wrote: > Am 30.05.2012 14:17, schrieb Csanyi Pal: > > Fetched 570 kB in 10mp (56,8 kB/s) > > W: GPG hiba: http://code.bitlbee.org ./ Release: Az alábbi aláírások > > érvénytelenek voltak: KEYEXPIRED 1338072862 > > Somewhere at bitlbee.org as it appers you are trying to

Re: GPG Error: KEYEXPIRED 1338072862

Am 30.05.2012 14:17, schrieb Csanyi Pal: > Hi, > > when I update and safe-upgrade with aptitude my system I get these days > the following messages: > > Fetched 570 kB in 10mp (56,8 kB/s) > W: GPG hiba: http://code.bitlbee.org ./ Release: Az alábbi aláírások > érvénytelenek voltak: KEYEXPIRED 133

Re: gpg/pgp noise

13.05.2012 10:26, Andrei POPESCU kirjoitti: > @Mika: > At least in my experience Mailman is NOT breaking GPG/MIME. I know of at > least 4 different Mailman installations (including > lists.alioth.debian.org) that work fine. At least it doesn't work on gnupg-user nor enigmail nor lists.ubuntu.com

Re: gpg/pgp noise

Hopefully not reigniting this... On Ma, 08 mai 12, 05:43:17, Indulekha wrote: > Hi, > > I'm getting this with most gog/pgp-signed mails received > from this list (using mutt): This part has been solved, but since it is highly unlikely for you to have a trust path to my key you'll still get a b

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:20:08PM +0300, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 09.05.2012 11:56, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: > > On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not > >> You waste our time and bandwidth. > > > > In what way? I can verify

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 02:45:59PM +0100, Jon Dowland wrote: > On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 08:28:35AM -0500, Indulekha wrote: > > You must be from up north, LOL! > > Now *that's* rude. Only if you're from up north, and from where I'm sitting that includes just about everyone. :(=) -- "Religion is e

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 5:20 AM, Mika Suomalainen wrote: > 09.05.2012 11:56, Jon Dowland kirjoitti: >> On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 12:29:31PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>> Bob's PGP signature is valid - yours is not >>> You waste our time and bandwidth. >> >> In what way? I can verify Mika's signatu

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 11:37:23AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > The signature of Tiberius was trusted by Pilatus and Herodes. The > signature of Philippus wasn't trusted by Lysanias or anybody els. > > I couldn't find a key on public servers for Hannas and Kaiphas, but > fortunately the key of Joh

Re: gpg/pgp noise

On Wed, May 09, 2012 at 08:18:56PM +1000, Scott Ferguson wrote: > >(you've trimmed my initial investigation which indicates he > > has at least one signatory.) > > "investigation"? > > Huh? > > How hard was it to see the key is signed by... the key holder (or > another person called Mika?), usin

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >