Problems with GPGME returning "Not Implemented" or "Configuration error"
jestedfa at microsoft.com
Fri Mar 10 12:48:47 CET 2017
Aha! This makes a lot of sense.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Werner Koch [mailto:wk at gnupg.org]
> Sent: Friday, March 10, 2017 4:33 AM
> To: Jeffrey Stedfast <jestedfa at microsoft.com>
> Cc: gnupg-users at gnupg.org
> Subject: Re: Problems with GPGME returning "Not Implemented" or
> "Configuration error"
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2017 00:57, jestedfa at microsoft.com said:
> > I spotted the fact that I was (incorrectly) using
> > gpgme_op_decrypt_verify() when I think I should be using
> > gpgme_op_decrypt(), so I fixed that but I still get “Not Implemented”.
> The reason why it shows "Not implemented" is that you used
> gpgme_set_passphrase_cb () with GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS. gpgsm does
> not support a passphrase callback in the same way as gpg does. In particular
> gpgme sets up a command line edit handler to push the passphrase via the
> callback to to gpg. gpgsm has no --command-fd option but only a --
> passphrase-fd option which can be used with --pinentry-mode=loopback.
> Right, this should be fixed. I think we already have a feature request for this.
> As a workaround, you should
> gpgme_set_passphrase_cb (ctx, NULL, NULL);
> after switching to GPGME_PROTOCOL_CMS. This will then use the pinentry
> and thus you need to provide a dummy pinentry for your test suite (or use
> no passphrase at all).
> Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
More information about the Gnupg-users