How to encrypt a file using my gpg private key so I can decrypt it later

I have a text file on my GNU/Linux lapto[ and I want to encrypt it with my gpg private key so I can decrypt it later and see the output. I've try to use this:

gpg --encrypt file.txt

but ask me to put Current recipients I don't want any recipients I want to read it myself.

How can I encrypt a file using gpg?

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

add a comment |

I have a text file on my GNU/Linux lapto[ and I want to encrypt it with my gpg private key so I can decrypt it later and see the output. I've try to use this:

gpg --encrypt file.txt

but ask me to put Current recipients I don't want any recipients I want to read it myself.

How can I encrypt a file using gpg?

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

add a comment |

I have a text file on my GNU/Linux lapto[ and I want to encrypt it with my gpg private key so I can decrypt it later and see the output. I've try to use this:

gpg --encrypt file.txt

but ask me to put Current recipients I don't want any recipients I want to read it myself.

How can I encrypt a file using gpg?

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

I have a text file on my GNU/Linux lapto[ and I want to encrypt it with my gpg private key so I can decrypt it later and see the output. I've try to use this:

gpg --encrypt file.txt

but ask me to put Current recipients I don't want any recipients I want to read it myself.

How can I encrypt a file using gpg?

gnupg

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

asked Jun 28 '17 at 6:53

jcubic

6631920

add a comment |

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

I have used this method to encrypt a file gpg -r your.email@example.com -e ./filename and this will create filename.gpg which is the encrypted content.

And to decrypt you do gpg -d filename.gpg

In regards to the email requirement - when you generate a new key using gpg --gen-key you will be required to enter an email address and it will create a public/privatey key pair based on that email address. You simply need to use that same email address. It does not send it, it simply tell gpg which private/public key pair to use (and the identifier is the email address)

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

add a comment |

The canonical way is to use --encrypt-to name with your id (typical: mail address) for name. Documentation says that's the way to to "encrypt-to-self".

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

add a comment |

A better way is to encrypt using your PUBLIC key, then use your PRIVATE key later to decrypt the file. This way lends itself to automating encryption via a non-interactive script:

gpg --batch --yes --trust-model always -r $YOURGPGPUBKEYEMAIL -e ./file.txt

NOTE: I upload ONLY my PUBLIC key to public server I want to protect data on, keeping my PRIVATE key apart from it. That's pretty tight.

Obviously if you're NOT using your own public key, tread carefully with the --trust-model always switch.

Also be aware that decrypting will of course require a password unless you automate this too. HTH- Terrence Houlahan

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "3"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fsuperuser.com%2fquestions%2f1223546%2fhow-to-encrypt-a-file-using-my-gpg-private-key-so-i-can-decrypt-it-later%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

3 Answers
3

active

oldest

votes

I have used this method to encrypt a file gpg -r your.email@example.com -e ./filename and this will create filename.gpg which is the encrypted content.

And to decrypt you do gpg -d filename.gpg

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

add a comment |

I have used this method to encrypt a file gpg -r your.email@example.com -e ./filename and this will create filename.gpg which is the encrypted content.

And to decrypt you do gpg -d filename.gpg

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

add a comment |

I have used this method to encrypt a file gpg -r your.email@example.com -e ./filename and this will create filename.gpg which is the encrypted content.

And to decrypt you do gpg -d filename.gpg

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

I have used this method to encrypt a file gpg -r your.email@example.com -e ./filename and this will create filename.gpg which is the encrypted content.

And to decrypt you do gpg -d filename.gpg

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

answered Jun 28 '17 at 7:19

Darius

4,68622020

add a comment |

The canonical way is to use --encrypt-to name with your id (typical: mail address) for name. Documentation says that's the way to to "encrypt-to-self".

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

add a comment |

The canonical way is to use --encrypt-to name with your id (typical: mail address) for name. Documentation says that's the way to to "encrypt-to-self".

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

add a comment |

The canonical way is to use --encrypt-to name with your id (typical: mail address) for name. Documentation says that's the way to to "encrypt-to-self".

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

The canonical way is to use --encrypt-to name with your id (typical: mail address) for name. Documentation says that's the way to to "encrypt-to-self".

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

answered Jun 28 '17 at 6:57

jvb

1,219413

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

add a comment |

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

...may be used with your own user-id as an "encrypt-to-self"... does in my book not indicate that it is a canonical way to do something. What are the advantages and disadvantages of using --encrypt-to name over --recipient?

– Ini
Dec 30 '18 at 16:37

@ini I guess I'm inclined to refer to that option as canonical because it's suggested to use it for "encrypt to self" in the official documentation at gnupg.org, see my link. In any case, --recipient will not be sufficient, you would have to add --encrypt (it's not optional). Classification of differences in behavior in "advantages" and "disadvantages" will depend on your use case and would be probably be opinion-based.

– jvb
Dec 30 '18 at 20:33

add a comment |

A better way is to encrypt using your PUBLIC key, then use your PRIVATE key later to decrypt the file. This way lends itself to automating encryption via a non-interactive script:

gpg --batch --yes --trust-model always -r $YOURGPGPUBKEYEMAIL -e ./file.txt

NOTE: I upload ONLY my PUBLIC key to public server I want to protect data on, keeping my PRIVATE key apart from it. That's pretty tight.

Obviously if you're NOT using your own public key, tread carefully with the --trust-model always switch.

Also be aware that decrypting will of course require a password unless you automate this too. HTH- Terrence Houlahan

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

add a comment |

A better way is to encrypt using your PUBLIC key, then use your PRIVATE key later to decrypt the file. This way lends itself to automating encryption via a non-interactive script:

gpg --batch --yes --trust-model always -r $YOURGPGPUBKEYEMAIL -e ./file.txt

NOTE: I upload ONLY my PUBLIC key to public server I want to protect data on, keeping my PRIVATE key apart from it. That's pretty tight.

Obviously if you're NOT using your own public key, tread carefully with the --trust-model always switch.

Also be aware that decrypting will of course require a password unless you automate this too. HTH- Terrence Houlahan

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

add a comment |

A better way is to encrypt using your PUBLIC key, then use your PRIVATE key later to decrypt the file. This way lends itself to automating encryption via a non-interactive script:

gpg --batch --yes --trust-model always -r $YOURGPGPUBKEYEMAIL -e ./file.txt

NOTE: I upload ONLY my PUBLIC key to public server I want to protect data on, keeping my PRIVATE key apart from it. That's pretty tight.

Obviously if you're NOT using your own public key, tread carefully with the --trust-model always switch.

Also be aware that decrypting will of course require a password unless you automate this too. HTH- Terrence Houlahan

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

A better way is to encrypt using your PUBLIC key, then use your PRIVATE key later to decrypt the file. This way lends itself to automating encryption via a non-interactive script:

gpg --batch --yes --trust-model always -r $YOURGPGPUBKEYEMAIL -e ./file.txt

NOTE: I upload ONLY my PUBLIC key to public server I want to protect data on, keeping my PRIVATE key apart from it. That's pretty tight.

Obviously if you're NOT using your own public key, tread carefully with the --trust-model always switch.

Also be aware that decrypting will of course require a password unless you automate this too. HTH- Terrence Houlahan

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

edited Feb 6 at 23:10

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

answered Feb 6 at 22:03

F1Linux

1114

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

add a comment |

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

I think it's the same as accepted answer.

– jcubic
Feb 7 at 8:16

The accepted answer implies both public and private keys are on the same host. My answer proposes uploading ONLY your PUBLIC key to the host encrypting the data. Without the --trust-model always switch I add to the command, an error will be puked about trust and break non-interactive automation. So the approaches are technically very different.

– F1Linux
Feb 7 at 8:22

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Super User!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Bdtyktl