PGP 2.6.X and MS Vista

[h***@gawab.com]

I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?

Bob

[Neil W Rickert]

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?

I don't know the answer, since I haven't used it in Windows.
However, I do have some old DOS/Windows programs that work fine
in XP but don't run in Vista. It looks as if Microsoft has pulled
some of the support for old DOS programs.

Maybe it depends on the Vista version. I am using the home premium
version.

[h***@gawab.com]

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

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?

I don't know the answer . . .

Thanks for the response anyway. Perhaps someone else will come along,
someone who has the answer. Problem is there aren't many of us 2.6.X
freaks around nowadays. More is the pity. I still find a lot of use
for those old progs. I'm even communicating with a few folks with
them. No, I'm not doing it DIRECTLY from the comman line anymore. Over
the years I wrote a ton of batch files that do the drudge work for me.

[David E. Ross]

Post by h***@gawab.com

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

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?

I don't know the answer . . .

Thanks for the response anyway. Perhaps someone else will come along,
someone who has the answer. Problem is there aren't many of us 2.6.X
freaks around nowadays. More is the pity. I still find a lot of use
for those old progs. I'm even communicating with a few folks with
them. No, I'm not doing it DIRECTLY from the comman line anymore. Over
the years I wrote a ton of batch files that do the drudge work for me.

Old software is not obsolete if it still performs the tasks for which it
was obtained and those tasks are still needed. I'm using an E-mail
application that was last updated 11 years ago.

[Baal]

David E. Ross wrote in alt.security.pgp on November 8, 2008 13:04 in

Post by David E. Ross

Post by h***@gawab.com

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

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to
use PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?

I don't know the answer . . .

Thanks for the response anyway. Perhaps someone else will come along,
someone who has the answer. Problem is there aren't many of us 2.6.X
freaks around nowadays. More is the pity. I still find a lot of use
for those old progs. I'm even communicating with a few folks with
them. No, I'm not doing it DIRECTLY from the comman line anymore.
Over the years I wrote a ton of batch files that do the drudge work
for me.

Old software is not obsolete if it still performs the tasks for which
it was obtained and those tasks are still needed. I'm using an E-mail
application that was last updated 11 years ago.

Agreed, but my main concern about PGP 2.6.x is its reliance on the MD5 hash
algorithm. Disastry's versions allow for the use of SHA-1, but I would be
loathe to use the original unmodified versions that rely solely on MD5,
given its all-but-broken status.

Baal <***@Usenet.org>
PGP Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x1E92C0E8
PGP Key Fingerprint: 40E4 E9BB D084 22D5 3DE9 66B8 08E3 638C 1E92 C0E8
Retired Lecturer, Encryption and Data Security, Pedo U, Usenet Campus
- --

"Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?" -- "Who will watch the Watchmen?"
-- Juvenal, Satires, VI, 347. circa 128 AD

[Otto Sykora]

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?
Bob

First it would be important to know what operating system you did use
until now.
Since 263 did work on many systems, but some commands could not be
executed since they simply refused to work in any dos above 6.22

We had some discussion abt it few months ago, sometime in august I
think. Try some search and you might find something in archives.

Anyway, there are some versions compiled more for w32 then the original
version was. They were done by Disastry, well known member of this NG
earlier.

http://www.spywarewarrior.com/uiuc/disastry/263multi.htm

there are some of the versions there.

But it is allways kind of problem with the current versions of windows.
They do not like environment variables, dont like start up bat files etc.
But if you managed to operate it let say under XP or w2k, you will mange
under Vista too.

[Otto Sykora]

Post by h***@gawab.com
I'm considering a change of operating systems. Can I continue to use
PGP v2.6.3i if I install Vista?
Bob

look also here:
http://groups.google.com.mx/group/alt.security.pgp/browse_thread/thread/650d38b6cd5939ac

[h***@gawab.com]

Hi Guys,

I thank ALL of you for the help you offered. I'm still not sure
whether PGP v2.6.3i will work with Vista, but I do know of a way to
find out. That is to install Visata and try it. So within the next
thirty days I'll do exactly that. When finished I'll come here and
file a report.

Several questions arose as this conversations progressed. In order to
clear things up in your minds I offer the following information:

Right now I'm operating a PC using WIN XP SP2 updated to SP3. Nothing
special about the machine or the software installed. And I'm using PGP
v2.6.3i Multi06 as produced by Disastry. From time to time I even used
'conventuonal' 2.6.3i as rendered by several people. Every one of
those versions work perfectly with my OS. No, I'm not sure about
security, but from a functionality standpoint there are no problems
whatsoever.

It may be of interest to know that setting the environment variables
with XP as far as v2.6.3i goes is no problem at all. Fact is, though,
that I DO NOT set them as the original documentation recommends. In
fact I don't set them at all. I won't bother to explain all that here.
Suffice it to say that PGP 2.6.3i works fine without the settings if
one does it right.

And I'm not working directly from the command line either. Long ago I
set up twenty or more batch files (Actually CMD scripts) to do the
drudge work. I even developed a "drag and drop" system for many of the
operations. Works beautifully and the installation occupies less than
half a meg on a HD.

Would you believe it? By using a few small "add ons" I can encrypt the
clipboard then paste the contents into any text window. Or I can "cut"
the text from a window, encrypt it with 2.6.3i then paste the
ciphertext back into the same window. Too bad the public and private
keys aren't compatible with latter day versions of PGP.

[David E. Ross]

Post by h***@gawab.com
Hi Guys,
I thank ALL of you for the help you offered. I'm still not sure
whether PGP v2.6.3i will work with Vista, but I do know of a way to
find out. That is to install Visata and try it. So within the next
thirty days I'll do exactly that. When finished I'll come here and
file a report.
Several questions arose as this conversations progressed. In order to
Right now I'm operating a PC using WIN XP SP2 updated to SP3. Nothing
special about the machine or the software installed. And I'm using PGP
v2.6.3i Multi06 as produced by Disastry. From time to time I even used
'conventuonal' 2.6.3i as rendered by several people. Every one of
those versions work perfectly with my OS. No, I'm not sure about
security, but from a functionality standpoint there are no problems
whatsoever.
It may be of interest to know that setting the environment variables
with XP as far as v2.6.3i goes is no problem at all. Fact is, though,
that I DO NOT set them as the original documentation recommends. In
fact I don't set them at all. I won't bother to explain all that here.
Suffice it to say that PGP 2.6.3i works fine without the settings if
one does it right.
And I'm not working directly from the command line either. Long ago I
set up twenty or more batch files (Actually CMD scripts) to do the
drudge work. I even developed a "drag and drop" system for many of the
operations. Works beautifully and the installation occupies less than
half a meg on a HD.
Would you believe it? By using a few small "add ons" I can encrypt the
clipboard then paste the contents into any text window. Or I can "cut"
the text from a window, encrypt it with 2.6.3i then paste the
ciphertext back into the same window. Too bad the public and private
keys aren't compatible with latter day versions of PGP.

For 2.6.x versions of PGP, the keys are RSA v.3. All later versions of
PGP can use and even generate RSA v.3 keys.

The problem is that an RSA v.3 key is made invalid for PGP 2.6.x if it
is signed by a DH/DSS key or by an RSA v.4 key because PGP 2.6.x can
handle only RSA keys that are purely v.3.

[h***@gawab.com]

On Nov 9, 10:34 am, "David E. Ross" <***@nowhere.not> wrote: (in
part)

Q:  What's a President Bush cocktail?
A:  Business on the rocks.- Hide quoted text -

Rumor has it that one of George's relatives has developed and is now
marketing a bicycle without a seat and without handlebars. His
marketing promos claim the bike is for the little guy who last his ass
and doesn't know which way to turn.

[Damaeus]

Reading from news:alt.security.pgp,

Post by h***@gawab.com
Would you believe it? By using a few small "add ons" I can encrypt the
clipboard then paste the contents into any text window. Or I can "cut"
the text from a window, encrypt it with 2.6.3i then paste the
ciphertext back into the same window. Too bad the public and private
keys aren't compatible with latter day versions of PGP.

And one has to wonder if the magic is in the older versions, and new
versions are made incompatible to try to force the users of old
versions to upgrade to something that's actually less secure.

PGP is in such scant use as it is among the masses that those who want
to continue with the old versions can still do so with those who also
want to use old versions. I'm not interested in anything newer,
myself.

Damaeus