Is this possible? - PGP

This is a discussion on Is this possible? - PGP ; Everything I have found has to do with "Group signing parties" which is not what I'm interested in. I'm not familiar with PKS's. I've been to pgp.com, and pgpi.org and gnupg.org and have not found my answer. I have a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Is this possible?

  1. Is this possible?

    Everything I have found has to do with "Group signing parties" which
    is not what I'm interested in. I'm not familiar with PKS's. I've
    been to pgp.com, and pgpi.org and gnupg.org and have not found my
    answer.

    I have a group of people I want to send a piece of information to. Is
    there a way to sign the information ONCE (using all the relevant keys)
    and have each person able to decrypt it? What do you call this kind
    of distribution?

    I'll accept any pointers in good directions. I'm eager to learn and
    don't mind reading a lot, I just can't find a starting point.

    Thanks
    RDB

    P.S. - A few months ago, I seem to remember reading an article that
    described this very idea using PGP stuff. I can't locate the article
    any longer. Thanks in advance for your time.

  2. Re: Is this possible?

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

    rdb55@email.byu.edu (Randall Barber) wrote in
    news:4e8a6f44.0307291324.a428cd1@posting.google.co m:

    > Everything I have found has to do with "Group signing parties" which
    > is not what I'm interested in. I'm not familiar with PKS's. I've
    > been to pgp.com, and pgpi.org and gnupg.org and have not found my
    > answer.


    I think you are getting this mixed up with key signing parties.

    > I have a group of people I want to send a piece of information to. Is
    > there a way to sign the information ONCE (using all the relevant keys)
    > and have each person able to decrypt it? What do you call this kind
    > of distribution?
    >
    > I'll accept any pointers in good directions. I'm eager to learn and
    > don't mind reading a lot, I just can't find a starting point.


    Signing by itself does not require decryption. I think you are talking
    about Encryption or Encryption and Signing. You can encrypt to any
    number of keys at one time. If you have an email plug-in, and have all
    the keys on your keyring, and each has the necessary email address; it
    should involve nothing more than including each person's address in the
    To line. If you are using the Current Window usage, just double click on
    all the public keys you want to encrypt to; the keys will all be added to
    the Recipients part of the dialog.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: PGP 8.0.2
    Comment: My PGP Page & FAQ: http://www.McCune.cc/PGP.htm

    iQEVAwUBPybt/mDeI9apM77TAQLLAgf9FwXPhTg1fTVlRVDI5mUn0wFYc8S0Sr5 +
    wqpAqDA+f7Q/Q4U2HVzW77lpUTC5VE3CigH/RMcqul/aTihfNZJWE6gozetrPdB4
    o8Ia42eWqsaQ0C+ZpZ8LT+h1NSa5C/0SEvJys5TZCVebRjXTtXGlacfQ7ivLj28Q
    u8/72KzF2Hmhkbj5iVbo78xeq5bd03oWzptJCGhmBWpU5wbjT6hf/4DcU7+VKsS2
    VKZfafJYhwHoxNv6tntz7tVft9QzKzPaeVZco1+9XDyfSXSCdi NRiBEuX3ZNAXjw
    hexSv/SCA59HeSTn0BH8JjdXJsFNhvnOcRvBe6HYrMScL3+cM3o5uw==
    =WDTh
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  3. Re: Is this possible?

    In article <4e8a6f44.0307300613.119e34a0@posting.google.com>, Randall
    Barber wrote:

    > My apologies, I meant "encrypt it ONCE using all the keys, and
    > everyone being able to decrypt it on their own". I guess to clarify
    > somewhat, if I encrypt M with K_1, K_2, and K_3. At a later time, I
    > want to be able to decrypt M using only one of the three keys above.
    >

    That's exactly how it works. For each message there is a use-once
    session key in a symmetric cipher. The session key is encrypted with
    each of the addressees public keys.

    On receipt, each addressee may enter his private keyring's passphrase.
    PGP then uses his private key to decrypt the session key and then uses
    the session key to decrypt the common message body. This is done mostly
    for speed, since the symmetric algorithm is much faster than than the
    public/private key stuff. Since the session key is normally far shorter
    than the message, you get the multi-recipient benefit thrown in for
    free.

  4. Re: Is this possible?

    We've deployed WonderCrypt www.wondercrypt.com within our team. Being a
    small business, it's hard to afford an expensive corporate solution. I can
    send emails and files securely to my team members, securing our ideas from
    corporate espionage activities of bigger companies. I can also secure
    personal information and carry all my user-id & password info for various
    accounts on a secure hardware key. Its got all the features of a leading
    corporate solution, only a much cheaper price.

    As far as I know, a new version with usability for non-technical users is
    on-the-way...good for my team!

    Shakti

    "Randall Barber" wrote in message
    news:4e8a6f44.0307291324.a428cd1@posting.google.co m...
    > Everything I have found has to do with "Group signing parties" which
    > is not what I'm interested in. I'm not familiar with PKS's. I've
    > been to pgp.com, and pgpi.org and gnupg.org and have not found my
    > answer.
    >
    > I have a group of people I want to send a piece of information to. Is
    > there a way to sign the information ONCE (using all the relevant keys)
    > and have each person able to decrypt it? What do you call this kind
    > of distribution?
    >
    > I'll accept any pointers in good directions. I'm eager to learn and
    > don't mind reading a lot, I just can't find a starting point.
    >
    > Thanks
    > RDB
    >
    > P.S. - A few months ago, I seem to remember reading an article that
    > described this very idea using PGP stuff. I can't locate the article
    > any longer. Thanks in advance for your time.




  5. Re: Is this possible?

    Randall Barber wrote:
    >
    > My apologies, I meant "encrypt it ONCE using all the keys, and
    > everyone being able to decrypt it on their own". I guess to clarify
    > somewhat, if I encrypt M with K_1, K_2, and K_3. At a later time, I
    > want to be able to decrypt M using only one of the three keys above.
    >


    (Sorry for the late response, but I was away from computers for
    over three weeks.)

    To see how this works, see my
    , especially
    the second paragraph.

    --

    David E. Ross


    Concerned about someone snooping into your E-mail?
    Use PGP. See my

+ Reply to Thread