Hi,
Greetings,

I want to understand, PGP.

How to practically use it ?

I have thunderbird omnimix and nym identity.

Also how to use PGP for gmail yahoo hotmail?

I checked protonmail instructions, which I did not understand much.

Regards.

>
> I want to understand, PGP.
>
https://www.gnupg.org/index.html
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/binary/

1.4.x is the classic gpg (used by omnimix).

gnupg is a command line program, but there were some user interface.
I use the wonderful user interface by Roger Sondermann.
Unfortunately this guy had the same sad destiny of the creators of
Truecrypt and suddenly ceased to distribute his beautiful program.

M G wrote:

> Also how to use PGP for gmail yahoo hotmail?

comp.security.pgp.*, https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/

--

>I want to understand, PGP.

>How to practically use it ?

I use gpg4win as it's a windows program and perhaps might be easier for
you to come to grips with.
You can download it here: https://www.gpg4win.org/

>I have thunderbird omnimix and nym identity.

I use gpg4win with Thunderbird and have done so for a long time. I use
Omnimix to post anonymously to the newsgroups but don't bother with
creating a Nym.
I did use Nyms for many years under, firstly JBN, then QS and QSL, but
now I dodn't have confidence that when I really really need my Nym in
Omnimix to work correctly, that it won't, either through my message not
arriving or me, not receiving the reply. !

>Also how to use PGP for gmail yahoo hotmail?

This works fine with gpg4win or any other PGP program, just configure
your Email Client to contact your ISP, be it gmail, yahoo or hotmail
via POP or IMAP, and setup up yuour email client to encrypt the message
before sending it.

Good luck in the process
Fred

I forgot to mention, if you do go for gpg4win, it's the program within
the package called Kleopatra that I use.
I think gpg4win is up to version 4.2.0 at the moment.

Fred

On 1/1/2024 12:33 AM, M G wrote:

> Hi,
> Greetings,
>
> I want to understand, PGP.
>
> How to practically use it ?
>
> I have thunderbird omnimix and nym identity.
>
> Also how to use PGP for gmail yahoo hotmail?
>
> I checked protonmail instructions, which I did not understand much.
>
>
> Regards.

Keep in mind that to achieve encryption, both you and your
recipient must be using PGP.

Might be harder than you think.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 13:45:55 +0000 (UTC), Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>On 1/1/2024 12:33 AM, M G wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Greetings,
>> I want to understand, PGP.
>> How to practically use it ?
>> I have thunderbird omnimix and nym identity.
>> Also how to use PGP for gmail yahoo hotmail?
>> I checked protonmail instructions, which I did not understand much.
>> Regards.
>
>Keep in mind that to achieve encryption, both you and your
>recipient must be using PGP.
>Might be harder than you think.

the Omnimix tutorial could help
https://www.danner-net.de/omom/
https://www.danner-net.de/omom/tutorwme.htm
>OmniMix * Tutorial * Whole Message Encryption (WME) PreviousTopNext
>It's obvious to prevent your normal e-mail correspondence from being
>spied on by encrypting it with PGP. If the messages include attachments,
>you have to encrypt those as well. But there are parts of your message
>you can't hide this way, like its size, the subject, some language
>specific characteristics, and last, not least the fact of sending a
>multi-part message. That's where OmniMix's 'Whole Message Encryption'
>comes to your aid.
>Different from PGP frontends, which only allow to manipulate your
>message before being sent by the mail client, a proxy server like
>OmniMix is able to alter it as a whole, as long as the result remains
>a compatible mail. Provided that the PGP keys of all recipients of a
>mail are available, OmniMix can be advised to encrypt the entire
>message, including the complete header section and some random dummy
>data to disguise its real size, into one single PGP message block and
>send it by means of a rudimentary header, which has to contain nothing
>but the mail addresses and maybe some 'X-Hashcash' tokens. If it's sent
>via a nym server an existing 'Nym-Commands' directive is also moved
>outside the WME encryption block, but for reasons of security this
>doesn't matter, as the message in any case is additionally encrypted
>with the server's key. For an adversary, who's allowed to become
>acquainted with the identity of the correspondents, the result of this
>procedure is nearly worthless.
>Moreover OmniMix even supports sending WME messages anonymously, which
>usually isn't done to hide your identity from the recipients within
>your WME community, but to prevent external observers from figuring
>out the communication partners. Keep in mind, that the data within the
>WME block aren't anonymized, but, though maybe shortened dependent on
>an active 'Mail Permits' header filter list, handled like normal mail.
>In order to allow an unrestricted, transparent communication without
>adverse effects for the participants, among other things there's still
>your 'From' address - which may be bogus - and the 'Message-ID'. If
>the former can be found on the WME recipients list with 'Sign'
>activated, the resulting signature may also expose your identity to
>those who are able to decrypt the message. So check what gets
>encrypted at the 'Data for Whole Message Encryption' section of the
>'Raw Data' list as well as the 'Log' entries to assure yourself that
>no sensitive data are unintentionally revealed to the addressees!
>Caution: Don't send an anonymous mail to several addressees at a time
>if you don't want them to become linked! In this case send a separate
>one to each of them.
>The recipients then either have to decrypt the PGP block manually and
>import the result into their mail user agents, which certainly can
>only be accepted in exceptional cases. On the other hand OmniMix can
>automatically translate the messages back into their original state
>in the course of its retrieval from the POP3 server, as far as the
>corresponding secret PGP key and the correct passphrase are placed
>at its disposal.
>At the 'Dummy Load' page of the 'WME' section you're able to randomly
>increase the size of your mail. This measure prevents adversaries
>from estimating the kind of message, whether it's about a usually
>shorter text or a more voluminous data transfer. Request a message-
>specific dummy load by sending the desired block size range
>('O-Wme-Dummy-Size-Min' and 'O-Wme-Dummy-Size-Max' header entry)
>with your message. Values higher than the maximum block size defined
>within OmniMix are refused, as the processing of a message extreme
>in size may knock out your system. OmniMix now appends a random text
>block to your message introduced by a line with a unique character
>sequence. The contents of that indicator line is added to the message
>header as the argument of an 'X-Wme-Dummy-Separator' entry in order
>to allow the recipient's system to restore the original message by
>removing the dummy load. It's important, that the dummy separator
>header is named equally at the sender and recipient, as otherwise
>the addressee won't be able to restore the original message.
> Pros and cons of different communication methods
> Ordinary PGP WME Remailing Remailing Nym Nym
> Mail + WME + WME
>Contents Protection No Reduced* Complete* No Complete* No Complete*
>Reply Capability Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes
>Anonymity towards an external observer No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
>Anonymity between the correspondents No No No Yes No Yes Yes
>Latency Low Low Low Medium Medium High High
>Reliability High High High Medium Medium Low Low
> * Reduced: Net data only / Complete: Data + structure
>The first step to set up WME is to add all required keys to the 'WME'
>keyring ('WME' tab within the 'Nym Configurator'). You have to import
>public keys for your correspondents and one or more public / secret
>keypairs for yourself. Don't use any of your very secret PGP keys for
>that transmission purpose, as its passphrase has to be stored on your
>computer and both can be stolen by anyone who gets access! Better
>create new keys and mark them with names, that point out their low-
>security use, e.g. by adding the character sequence '(WME)' to the
>User-ID. As decryption problems can't be ruled out otherwise, it's
>recommended to create your keys within OmniMix itself.
>You may notice that the WME section offers a greater variety of
>partly more secure encryption and hash algorithms than allowed for
>nym accounts. That's because there's no need to consider the
>capabilities of remailers and nym servers.
>Next is to go to the 'WME' tab of the main window and add the mail
>addresses of all participants in your WME network to the list along
>with the corresponding key and - if it's a private key of your own -
>the passphrase. Based on this list, if WME is active, all mails,
>whether sent normally or by one of your nyms, are examined for the
>presence of corresponding encryption keys. If OmniMix finds keys for
>all 'To:' and 'Cc:' recipients and there are no 'Bcc:' recipients
>(who would be uncovered by an encryption using their keys), the mail
>gets encrypted and only header data mandatory for delivery are left
>outside the protected block. At request the sender's signature is
>added in the course of the encryption to prove the authenticity of
>the sent mail.
>Finally you have to tell OmniMix, who's allowed to use the single
>private key / password combinations to sign outgoing and decrypt
>incoming WME mails. Therefore go to the 'User' tab and mark for
>every user the 'WME' mail addresses that belong to that account.
>Now you've finished. All outgoing mails are processed dependent on
>the WME mode ('WME' tab, 'disabled' / 'enabled' / 'required'). If a
>message has to depart from that rule, then use the according header
>directive. 'O-WmeSend-Mode: required' e.g. rejects a message that
>can't be WME encrypted, with 'O-WmeSend-Mode: disabled' you would
>even be allowed to send a usual anonymous mail to someone whose key
>is present at the WME keys list. The 'Sign' setting within the WME
>participants list is binding in any case. Therefore, if signatures
>are requested, the WME encryption has to fail as long as the
>password isn't properly set for the WME key or the WME item isn't
>assigned to the user account.
[end quote]

>
> Might be harder than you think.

In my case, the most difficult thing was to persuade my friends to use
encryption. All they said to me that they don't have anything to hide.
Encryption is a power if we all use it.
But if only two or three people use encryption, encryption is useless.
A bad guy could be curious to know why only that boy is using gpg.

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 20:12:26 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>> Might be harder than you think.
>
>In my case, the most difficult thing was to persuade my friends to use
>encryption. All they said to me that they don't have anything to hide.
>Encryption is a power if we all use it.
>But if only two or three people use encryption, encryption is useless.
>A bad guy could be curious to know why only that boy is using gpg.

pgp clearsigning was/is often used to authenticate unencrypted
content, also the classic pgp658ckt version is still available . . .
https://web.archive.org/web/20041106013644/http://www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org/downloads/PGP/
>pgp658ckt08.zip 06-Jun-2003 13:44 6.1M
https://web.archive.org/web/20060919030712/http://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/downloads/PGP/pgp658ckt08.zip
>pgp658ckt08.exe 6.33 MB
>pgp658ckt08.zip.sig 4.00 KB
>pgp658ckt08.txt 49.2 KB
>PGP 6.5.8ckt - Build08 - Read me file - 05/02/2002
>Imad R. Faiad
>Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
>https://web.archive.org/web/20020215231038/http://www.ipgpp.com/

> Might be harder than you think.

>>In my case, the most difficult thing was to persuade my friends to use
>>encryption. All they said to me that they don't have anything to hide.
>>Encryption is a power if we all use it.
>>But if only two or three people use encryption, encryption is useless.
>>A bad guy could be curious to know why only that boy is using gpg.

You touch on something that's always bugged me, in that the "I've got
nothing to hide" excuse.
My answer might be, how do you know the person contacting you or trying
to, does have something to hide?
Also an excuse to never having to setup PGP/GPG to begin with !

Another reason why setting up a Nym, in my own opinion is a waste of
time. In the normal course of meeting people, communicating with a wide
range of people electronically, you're never going to meet another Nym
user ! It's not going to happen.

I've recently had reason to contact some researchers to supply them
with some information which almost certainly would assist them greatly
with their enquiries.
I asked how can I do this privately, and I explained that I'm not happy
doing so via a Facebook message, and that I wanted to protect my own
comments privacy, so perhaps they might themselves be able to supply me
with their public key.
Never heard from any of them, not even an acknowledgment or follow-up
email.

Cheers
Fred

On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 22:53:18 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>> Might be harder than you think.
>>
>>In my case, the most difficult thing was to persuade my friends to use
>>encryption. All they said to me that they don't have anything to hide.
>>Encryption is a power if we all use it.
>>But if only two or three people use encryption, encryption is useless.
>>A bad guy could be curious to know why only that boy is using gpg.
>
>You touch on something that's always bugged me, in that the "I've got
>nothing to hide" excuse.
>My answer might be, how do you know the person contacting you or trying
>to, does have something to hide?
>Also an excuse to never having to setup PGP/GPG to begin with !
>Another reason why setting up a Nym, in my own opinion is a waste of
>time. In the normal course of meeting people, communicating with a wide
>range of people electronically, you're never going to meet another Nym
>user ! It's not going to happen.
>I've recently had reason to contact some researchers to supply them
>with some information which almost certainly would assist them greatly
>with their enquiries.
>I asked how can I do this privately, and I explained that I'm not happy
>doing so via a Facebook message, and that I wanted to protect my own
>comments privacy, so perhaps they might themselves be able to supply me
>with their public key.
>Never heard from any of them, not even an acknowledgment or follow-up
>email.

anonymity could be a higher priority for some than it might be for others,
e.g. it's easier to be anonymous, live in seclusion and avoid socializing
in person; it's more convenient to hold discussions in unmoderated public
forums like this one while maintaining at least a pseudononymous identity
or nom de guerre; seems nym users would tend to shy away from socializers

On 1/1/2024 7:43 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

> I forgot to mention, if you do go for gpg4win, it's the program within
> the package called Kleopatra that I use.
> I think gpg4win is up to version 4.2.0 at the moment.

I like GPG4Win

On 1/2/2024 2:57 PM, D wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2024 20:12:26 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>> Anonymous <nobody@remailer.paranoici.org> wrote:
>>> Might be harder than you think.
>>
>> In my case, the most difficult thing was to persuade my friends to use
>> encryption. All they said to me that they don't have anything to hide.
>> Encryption is a power if we all use it.
>> But if only two or three people use encryption, encryption is useless.
>> A bad guy could be curious to know why only that boy is using gpg.
>
> pgp clearsigning was/is often used to authenticate unencrypted
> content, also the classic pgp658ckt version is still available . . .
> https://web.archive.org/web/20041106013644/http://www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org/downloads/PGP/
>> pgp658ckt08.zip 06-Jun-2003 13:44 6.1M
> https://web.archive.org/web/20060919030712/http://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/downloads/PGP/pgp658ckt08.zip
>> pgp658ckt08.exe 6.33 MB
>> pgp658ckt08.zip.sig 4.00 KB
>> pgp658ckt08.txt 49.2 KB
>> PGP 6.5.8ckt - Build08 - Read me file - 05/02/2002
>> Imad R. Faiad
>> Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20020215231038/http://www.ipgpp.com/
>
pgp658ckt was the last best version, being open-source, it had no
back-doors. Last Win OS to fully utilize it was XP. With Vista, it lost the
encrypt-disk function, but is fully incompatible with Win 10 and beyond.
Correct me if I'm mistaken.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2024 10:00:45 -0500, Wilson <nowhere@nearyou.com> wrote:
>On 1/2/2024 2:57 PM, D wrote:
snip
>> pgp clearsigning was/is often used to authenticate unencrypted
>> content, also the classic pgp658ckt version is still available . . .
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20041106013644/http://www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org/downloads/PGP/
>>> pgp658ckt08.zip 06-Jun-2003 13:44 6.1M
>> https://web.archive.org/web/20060919030712/http://www.panta-rhei.eu.org/downloads/PGP/pgp658ckt08.zip
>>> pgp658ckt08.exe 6.33 MB
>>> pgp658ckt08.zip.sig 4.00 KB
>>> pgp658ckt08.txt 49.2 KB
>>> PGP 6.5.8ckt - Build08 - Read me file - 05/02/2002
>>> Imad R. Faiad
>>> Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
>>> https://web.archive.org/web/20020215231038/http://www.ipgpp.com/
>>
>pgp658ckt was the last best version, being open-source, it had no
>back-doors. Last Win OS to fully utilize it was XP. With Vista, it lost the
>encrypt-disk function, but is fully incompatible with Win 10 and beyond.
>Correct me if I'm mistaken.

i'm only a layman user of pgp, remailers, etc. (e.g. i've never used nym),
but the "memory page locking driver" warning that appears in win 7/10/11
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pgp658ckt+memory+page+locking+driver+windows+7
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pgp658ckt+memory+page+locking+driver+windows+10
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pgp658ckt+memory+page+locking+driver+windows+11
may have some solution for fixing it, but that's too complicated pour moi;
the unzipped "pgp658ckt08.exe" (6.33 MB, 2002-5-2) installs by default to
"C:\Program Files (x86)\Network Associates\PGP" and seems to run normally

Wilson <nowhere@nearyou.com> wrote:

>pgp658ckt was the last best version, being open-source, it had no
>back-doors.

And GnuPG is not FOSS?

On 1/3/2024 7:00 AM, Wilson wrote:

>>> Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/

That link is dead.