possible bug: bad signatures with 0.2.16

Werner Koch wk at isil.d.shuttle.de
Mon May 4 10:51:01 CEST 1998

Matthew Skala <mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca> writes:

> All the signatures I create with 0.2.16 seem to be bad.  I haven't tested
> this extensively, but it's happened with "-seat", "-sea", and "-sa" so
> far.  There are no error messages when the signature is created, and
> --list-packets produces sensible-looking output, but I get the message
> "BAD signature" when verifying the signature.

gpg: armor header: Version: GNUPG v0.2.16 (Linux)
gpg: armor header: Comment: This is an alpha version!
:OpenPGP draft comment packet: "#created by GNUPG v0.2.16 (Linux)"
:compressed packet: algo=2
:onepass_sig packet: keyid 159647180F958DFD
        version 3, sigclass 00, digest 2, pubkey 16, last=1
You are using SHA1 - I guess I had no test case for this.
gpg: Good signature from Matthew A. Skala <mskala at ansuz.sooke.bc.ca>

Okay, I fixed it. Will be in the next release.


More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list