Forgot the key passowrd

Tue Aug 9 18:40:20 CEST 2005

Hi,

After creation of the key I forgot the pasword for that key.

Is there any way that I can get the password again.

Regards,
srini

-----Original Message-----
From: gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org [mailto:gnupg-users-bounces at gnupg.org]
On Behalf Of gnupg-users-request at gnupg.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2005 9:55 PM
To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Subject: Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15

Send Gnupg-users mailing list submissions to
	gnupg-users at gnupg.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	gnupg-users-request at gnupg.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	gnupg-users-owner at gnupg.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gnupg-users digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (David Srbecky)
   2. Re: validate_key_list failed (Mark H. Wood)
   3. Re: Proof of email ownership (Werner Koch)
   4. Re: Multiple self signatures (David Shaw)
   5. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Werner Koch)
   6. Re: validate_key_list failed (Janusz A. Urbanowicz)
   7. Re: Extra information in public key (Mark H. Wood)
   8. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
      encoding alone, how?) (Greg Sabino Mullane)
   9. Re: Arguments for inline PGP (Zeljko Vrba)
  10. removing revoked or expired signatures (Folkert van Heusden)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:59:15 +0200
From: David Srbecky <dsrbecky at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <42F89A93.6090300 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> Alphax schrieb:
> 
> 
>>Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Points taken - Have you ever looked at an signed (using MIME) message in
>>>>OutlookExpress? AAAARRRGGGG .....
>>
>>Sorry, I've never used Lookout.
> 
> 
> The attachment is a snapshoot of David Srbecky's recent MIME signed post
> "Re: Extra information in public key" to this list.
> 
> If the MIME declaration is change from
> 
> multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> 
> to
> 
> multipart/mixed; micalg=pgp-sha1; ...
> 
> OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> encryption plugins.

Sorry for that. I do not know that happened. (Could it be some misuse of 
"Edit as New..."?)

I do not use inline because I find the extra stuff annoying. However, 
MIME can look really nasty too. That's I would prefer to save the 
signature in the mail headers.

David Srbecky
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/a604ffac/signature-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:22:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mark H. Wood" <mwood at IUPUI.Edu>
Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed
To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users at gnupg.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508090818080.21198 at mhw.ulib.iupui.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Me, too. :-/ I completely emptied my public keyring, one key at a time,
looking for the damage and never found it.  Eventually I renamed the empty
file away and built a new one, and now I have no more trouble.

I don't know whether a keyring file is supposed to shrink when substantial
numbers of keys are removed, but it never did.

- -- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood at IUPUI.Edu
Open-source executable:  $0.00.  Source:  $0.00  Control:  priceless!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/

iD8DBQFC+K4ds/NR4JuTKG8RAgFDAJ0dKzS38oA8+RL9lM9NVgu/0v67wQCffQfe
28f7fTe5Gv9eMOURoIdnrE0=
=Q/GM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:22:58 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org>
Subject: Re: Proof of email ownership
To: md at Linux.IT (Marco d'Itri)
Cc: gnupg-devel at gnupg.org, gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <87acjrtfbh.fsf at wheatstone.g10code.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 20:34:33 +0200, Marco d'Itri said:

> How does this interact with DKIM?

DKIM does not work.  For example, their canonicalization is broken and
one can easily fake a MIME message.

Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 09:19:58 -0400
From: David Shaw <dshaw at jabberwocky.com>
Subject: Re: Multiple self signatures
To: Tobias Eichert <tobias at karmabits.net>
Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <20050809131958.GA9476 at jabberwocky.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Thu, Jul 28, 2005 at 11:33:24PM +0200, Tobias Eichert wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have multiple self signatures within my key and I haven't
> found a reason yet. I usually don't self-sign my key several
> times (well, at least I'm not aware of it). :)
> 
>
http://pgpkeys.pca.dfn.de:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&fingerprint=on&search=0
x7E9154BFDA817013
> 
> How can I prevent this?

You can't, really.  Every time you change the expiration date of your
key, or change your preferences you issue a new self-signature.  The
keyservers don't delete old ones (they can't), so self sigs pile up
after a while.  They are harmless.

If it bothers you, do --edit-key and use the "clean" command.

David

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:27:01 +0200
From: Werner Koch <wk at gnupg.org>
Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
To: Thomas Kuehne <thomas-gmane at kuehne.cn>
Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <871x53tf4q.fsf at wheatstone.g10code.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 13:43:40 +0200, Thomas Kuehne said:

> OutlookExpress displays the message just like Mozilla or KMail without
> encryption plugins.

Use a MIME compliant MUA and not such a spam/DoS/virus vector.

Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:53:30 +0200
From: "Janusz A. Urbanowicz" <alex at bofh.net.pl>
Subject: Re: validate_key_list failed
To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org, Thomas Klausner <tk at giga.or.at>
Message-ID: <20050809125329.GB6873 at syjon.fantastyka.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 12:33:07PM +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 05, 2005 at 04:15:47PM +0200, Thomas Klausner wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > After adding some keys recently, I always get:
> [snip]
> > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring
> > gpg: failed to rebuild keyring cache: invalid keyring
> > gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model
> > gpg: mpi larger than indicated length (2 bytes)
> > gpg: keyring_get_keyblock: read error: invalid packet
> > gpg: keydb_get_keyblock failed: invalid keyring
> > gpg: validate_key_list failed
> >
> > And the trustdb is not updated, because on the next run
> > I get the same error.
> >
> > How can I fix this?
> > Or how can I find out which key it is, so I can remove it
> > (as workaround)?
> 
> FWIW, I've been getting the same with the FreeBSD port of gnupg-1.4.2.
> I've reverted to using 1.4.1 for the present.

it is the same kind of errors that I repoted an hour ago on -devel with
subject 'keyring thrashed' - if it helps.

Alex
-- 
mors ab alto 
0x46399138

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:37:39 -0500 (EST)
From: "Mark H. Wood" <mwood at IUPUI.Edu>
Subject: Re: Extra information in public key
To: GNU Privacy Guard users <gnupg-users at gnupg.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.58.0508090827470.21198 at mhw.ulib.iupui.edu>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005, David Srbecky wrote:
[snip]
> And the content might look like this:
>
> First name=David
> Last name=Srbecky
> Country=Czech Republic
> City=Usti nad Labem
> Telephone=+65 536 1024
> ICQ=#128-256-512
> Homepage url=http://www.gnupg.org/
> Prefers encrypted mail=true
> Prefers signed mail=true
> Preferred encapsulation=MIME
> PGP key url=http://www.gnupg.org/dsrbecky/pgp.key
[snip]
> So, what do you think?

I think this looks like a job for a directory service.  About half of
those attributes are already defined in some X.500 schema and could easily
be dished up via LDAP, which any recent MUA ought to understand already.
Using a directory service for directory service sounds better to me than
overloading key subpackets.  How about just one simple record (a URI?) to
provide the linkage from the key to the directory object?  (I'd be very
much surprised if there isn't an attribute ID allocated for PGP keys
already, which can effectively provide the reverse "link".)

- -- 
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer   mwood at IUPUI.Edu
Open-source executable:  $0.00.  Source:  $0.00  Control:  priceless!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: pgpenvelope 2.10.2 - http://pgpenvelope.sourceforge.net/

iD8DBQFC+LGps/NR4JuTKG8RAvxYAJ9nu1hCD/xjiVUr1Y/uRFvQZZ2M/QCcD6KS
5bpCKFT7eKf+nOrhBV0kL5g=
=yyg7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Tue,  9 Aug 2005 15:26:28 -0000
From: "Greg Sabino Mullane" <greg at turnstep.com>
Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP (was: Leave clearsigned content
	encoding alone, how?)
To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <54f73e336d613b22ab6a91b2f2f6f8fd at biglumber.com>

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

>> * My email has a much better chance of reaching people whose
>> systems bounce (or discard!) attachments.

> Are there really a lot of such systems?  I've encountered very few
> that bounce messages with attachments, and if they discard attachments
> then your message is still intact, just unsigned.

I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
attachments."

> * It is easy to transfer my message to another format (such as a
> webpage) while keeping the signature.

> Keeping it, perhaps.  Keeping it intact, not so much.  Any
> reformatting done by a web browser (which is perfectly legitimate for
> the browser to do) will break the signature, of course.  If you force
> the formatting with <pre> tags, you've made a concession which allows
> the MIME version to work equally well.

Well, of course one uses a PRE tag, that was implied. And I don't see
how the MIME version works equally well - how would you verify a
webpage dump of a MIME stream?

> I see your points, but in my opinion they aren't worth giving up the
> benefits of MIME -- especially in what one hopes will be a generally
> applicable standard.  The ability to sign attachments gracefully isn't
> the only plus, for example, but that alone seems to be enough to make
> MIME a clear winner.

I'm not arguing giving up MIME at all - there are situations where it is
indispensable, and I even use it on some occasions. But I did want to
counter the "inline is evil and should never ever be used by anyone"
argument. :)

- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg at turnstep.com
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200508091124
https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkL4yukACgkQvJuQZxSWSshZfACgic4eyzK3o/5eUgaplSqJ7r2/
4KsAn1O91MNfSYdjHnnc5C3D5yV90+P7
=X/XW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 18:01:40 +0200
From: Zeljko Vrba <zvrba at globalnet.hr>
Subject: Re: Arguments for inline PGP
To: Greg Sabino Mullane <greg at turnstep.com>
Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <42F8D364.90109 at globalnet.hr>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>
> I should have said "whose systems bounce (or discard!) emails with
> attachments."
>
I can say that I've worked in such company. Oddly enough, the server
seemed to strip only the application/pgp, or whatever the MIME type is,
replacing it with some bogus MS-TNEF attachment. Other attachments got
through just fine...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 254 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/798e9c90/signature-0001.pgp

------------------------------

Message: 10
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 18:22:57 +0200
From: Folkert van Heusden <folkert at vanheusden.com>
Subject: removing revoked or expired signatures
To: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
Message-ID: <20050809162257.GL19223 at vanheusden.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Hi,

How can I remove revoked and/or expired signatures from my public key?
E.g. keys like these:
sig       X  CA57AD7C 2005-07-15  PGP Global Directory Verification Key

Folkert van Heusden

-- 
Auto te koop, zie: http://www.vanheusden.com/daihatsu.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Get your PGP/GPG key signed at www.biglumber.com!
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE

------------------------------

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

End of Gnupg-users Digest, Vol 23, Issue 15
*******************************************
--------------------------------------------------------

If you are not an intended recipient of this e-mail, please notify the sender, delete it and do not read, act upon, print, disclose, copy, retain or redistribute it. Click here for important additional terms relating to this e-mail.     http://www.ml.com/email_terms/
--------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9840 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20050809/2c03bee3/attachment-0001.bin