Re: Security Signature

[ Q2 03 - Q4 05 Archive ] [ Current Message Board ] [ Archives ] [ Search ]

In Reply to: Re: Security Signature posted by Chuck Seberg on August 05, 2003 at 17:28:48:

: : : Just for fun I decided to verify the signature in the Version 6.6 announcement.

: : Hi Chuck,

: : Well, it really was me... :)

: : I just downloaded our PGP key from:

: : http://www.fundmanagersoftware.com/BSoft.asc

: : and used PGP 8.0 to verify the message I sent. It showed it was signed
: : with a good signature:

: : *** PGP SIGNATURE VERIFICATION ***
: : *** Status: Good Signature
: : *** Signer: Beiley Software Inc. <> (0xAD56F687)
: : *** Signed: 8/4/2003 11:15:47 PM
: : *** Verified: 8/5/2003 1:06:26 PM
: : *** BEGIN PGP VERIFIED MESSAGE ***

: : Were you able to try to verify it with PGP? I wonder if it works with
: : PGP, but not GPG. I've never tried GPG.

: : Thanks,
: : Mark
: : --
: : Mark Beiley
: :
: : Fund Manager, portfolio management software for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/00/XP
: :

:
: Mark,

: The latest version of PGP that I have on my WIN32 partition is 6.5.8 that I got from MIT before the new PGP Corp was born. When I run your ecrypted signature thru this version using the Bsoft.asc key I also get "BAD signature".

: Do you suppose the new PGP version 8.0, which you use, is not backwards compatible with the older versions? If this is true, you might inform your customers that they can get the latest version at PGP.com. The freeware is still up there, but you have to look for it.

Hi Chuck,

I searched pgp.com to try and see if they had anything on bad signatures
or version compatibility, but I couldn't find anything. I'll bet you're
right, that it does have something to do with needing a certain version
of PGP...

Thanks,
Mark
--
Mark Beiley

Fund Manager, portfolio management software for Windows 95/98/ME/NT/00/XP

Replies: