Malformed Revokation Certificate?
brewhaha at freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Wed Aug 8 11:24:10 CEST 2012
On 2012-08-08 2:20 AM, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 07/08/12 15:18, Jay Litwyn wrote:
>> I submitted this revokation certificate to a couple of servers and
>> they said it was malformed,
>> and I had trouble guessing how to generate anything different. So, I
>> imported the revokation certificate, exported the whole key, and
>> submitted that. It worked.
> Now, I haven't ever revoked a key, but I wouldn't be surprised if this is how it
> is supposed to work. After all, the revocation certificate is just a special
> type of signature. You don't upload signatures to a keyserver, you upload keys
> with signatures to a keyserver. The keyserver then merges in all the signatures
> it has on that key.
As long as the signature names what it signs, I do not see why a
revokation certificate should not work on its own. It does when I
import a revokation certificate to my own key.
>> gpg (GnuPG) 1.2.2
>> Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> That's old. Like, really old. Why do you use such an old version?
I had trouble finding a binary of anything more recent, and I had
trouble configuring the 2.x version that I installed with enigmail
to use pgp2 and support IDEA. In fact, I've forgotten where the
configuration file for 2.x is, and it still is not configured with
IDEA support. A lot more keys are on my keyring for v2.0.17.
> As for PGP 2.6.3, I believe the idea (IDEA? :) is that if you really still want
> to use that, you have to be prepared for some struggles to get all sides
> communicating. That's the price you pay.
I have trouble enough getting any correspondent to use cryptography
when they should be using it. OH...I was going to revoke _this_ key,
and because gpg 2.0.17 skips v.3 signatures, I still will.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 370 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Gnupg-users