From alci at mecadu.org Sun Oct 1 18:37:46 2017 From: alci at mecadu.org (Franck Routier) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 18:37:46 +0200 Subject: Smartcard not seen when reinserted Message-ID: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> Hi, I have a problem where my OpenPGP smartcard is not recognized when I remove it from the reader and reinsert it. Moreover I like to remove the card and reinsert it when needed, as when used for authentication with Poldi, I'm only asked for the PIN once, and then the PIN is cached (at the smardcard level if I am to believe this https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/147267/gpg-agent-keeps-saving-pin-for-a-smartcard/168312) My problem when reinserting the card seems to be very similar to this https://lists.gt.net/gnupg/users/79006 , except I'm using a GemPC Twin SmartCard usb card reader (ID 08e6:3437 Gemalto (was Gemplus)). Restarting gpg-agent with gpgconf --kill gpg-agent does the trick but is far from ideal... the solution should be to use scd-event, if I understand the thread well. So here are my (quite unrelated) questions: 1) is there a way to be asked for the PIN on each authentication operation ? (fellowship openpgp card) 2) where is scd-event supposed to be located to be used ? ($GNUPGHOME is not assigned on my ubuntu system) 3) the example scd-event is full of... examples I don't really understand. Would someone be as kind as to give the magic that would make the card recognized on reinsert... I'm sorry for not being more autonomous on this, but I couldn't make my way through the docs :-( Best regards, Franck From guru at unixarea.de Sun Oct 1 20:33:28 2017 From: guru at unixarea.de (Matthias Apitz) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:33:28 +0200 Subject: Smartcard not seen when reinserted In-Reply-To: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> Message-ID: <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> El d?a domingo, octubre 01, 2017 a las 06:37:46p. m. +0200, Franck Routier escribi?: > Hi, > > I have a problem where my OpenPGP smartcard is not recognized when I > remove it from the reader and reinsert it. > > Moreover I like to remove the card and reinsert it when needed, as when > used for authentication with Poldi, I'm only asked for the PIN once, and > then the PIN is cached (at the smardcard level if I am to believe this > https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/147267/gpg-agent-keeps-saving-pin-for-a-smartcard/168312) > > ... I'm using a GnuPG-card for SSH and signing. I do not think, that it would be a good idea, that the secre on the card remain unlocked after withdraw (power reset) of the card, and mine does not cash it. It works like this: card insert ssh server --> PIN requested ssh server --> no PIN requested gpg2 ... --sign ... --> no PIN requested gpg2 ... --decrypt .... --> no PIN requested card remove card insert gpg2 ... --sign ... --> PIN requested ssh server --> PIN requested ssh server --> no PIN requested i.e. it seems that unlocking the SSH key unlocks the signing key as well, but not the other way around. Imagine you pull-out the card in your office/restaurant, loose the card, someone finds it before you note the lost and insert the card in your system... No, that a card "survives" unlocked a withdraw is not a good idea. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ? guru at unixarea.de, ? http://www.unixarea.de/ ? +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub 8. Mai 1945: Wer nicht feiert hat den Krieg verloren. 8 de mayo de 1945: Quien no festeja perdi? la Guerra. May 8, 1945: Who does not celebrate lost the War. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tim.smy at gmx.net Sun Oct 1 19:18:34 2017 From: tim.smy at gmx.net (xstation) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 10:18:34 -0700 (MST) Subject: 1024 key with large sub key Message-ID: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> this 1024 key has a 8192 sub key what is te meaning of such a large sub key? pub 1024D/6DE54A05 2017-10-01 uid tim.smy at gmx.net sub 8192g/E1776147 2017-10-01 -- Sent from: http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/GnuPG-User-f3.html From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Oct 2 02:44:15 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 20:44:15 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> References: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> Message-ID: <3c3c94c5-b186-a712-89e6-458111ff9265@sixdemonbag.org> > this 1024 key has a 8192 sub key what is te meaning of such a large sub key? You'd have to ask the owner. If he used GnuPG to generate this key he'd have to hack on the source code, because out of the box GnuPG only generates up to 4096-bit keys. From nils at familievogels.nl Mon Oct 2 07:49:48 2017 From: nils at familievogels.nl (Nils Vogels) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 07:49:48 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key Message-ID: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From alci at mecadu.org Mon Oct 2 13:35:16 2017 From: alci at mecadu.org (Franck Routier) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 13:35:16 +0200 Subject: Smartcard not seen when reinserted In-Reply-To: <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> Le 01/10/2017 ? 20:33, Matthias Apitz a ?crit : > El d?a domingo, octubre 01, 2017 a las 06:37:46p. m. +0200, Franck Routier escribi?: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a problem where my OpenPGP smartcard is not recognized when I >> remove it from the reader and reinsert it. >> >> Moreover I like to remove the card and reinsert it when needed, as when >> used for authentication with Poldi, I'm only asked for the PIN once, and >> then the PIN is cached (at the smardcard level if I am to believe this >> https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/147267/gpg-agent-keeps-saving-pin-for-a-smartcard/168312) >> >> ... > I'm using a GnuPG-card for SSH and signing. I do not think, that it > would be a good idea, that the secre on the card remain unlocked after > withdraw (power reset) of the card, and mine does not cash it. I agree with you, and I'm not asking for that. In fact I would like it to ask for the pin each time I need to authenticate... > It works > like this: > > card insert > ssh server --> PIN requested > ssh server --> no PIN requested > gpg2 ... --sign ... --> no PIN requested > gpg2 ... --decrypt .... --> no PIN requested > card remove > card insert > gpg2 ... --sign ... --> PIN requested > ssh server --> PIN requested > ssh server --> no PIN requested Thanks Matthias for your input. I think I was not clear, so let me restate my problem. My problem, in addition to the pin being cached "forever" (as long as the card is inserted, with no time limit), is that when I remove and reinsert the card, it is not recognized unless I restart gpg-agent. So here is what happens: card inserted pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested card removed (I don't like to let my card inserted, with no PIN validation needed !) card inserted --> card not seen (card error, OpenPGP card unavailable) gpgconf --kill gpg-agent --> card seen pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested etc... Hence my questions: 1) can I force PIN for authentication each time I use it (it seems that the forcesig option is for signature only, not for authentication) 2) what can I do to have my card recognized on reinsert, without ressorting to killing gpg-agent --> probably with some scd-event magic that's beyond my know-how for now... Thanks, Franck -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From guru at unixarea.de Mon Oct 2 16:37:58 2017 From: guru at unixarea.de (Matthias Apitz) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 16:37:58 +0200 Subject: Smartcard not seen when reinserted In-Reply-To: <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> Message-ID: <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> El d?a lunes, octubre 02, 2017 a las 01:35:16p. m. +0200, Franck Routier escribi?: > My problem, in addition to the pin being cached "forever" (as long as > the card is inserted, with no time limit), is that when I remove and > reinsert the card, it is not recognized unless I restart gpg-agent. > > So here is what happens: > > card inserted > pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested > pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested > pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested > card removed (I don't like to let my card inserted, with no PIN > validation needed !) > card inserted --> card not seen (card error, > OpenPGP card unavailable) > gpgconf --kill gpg-agent --> card seen > pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested > pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested > etc... > > Hence my questions: > 1) can I force PIN for authentication each time I use it (it seems that > the forcesig option is for signature only, not for authentication) > 2) what can I do to have my card recognized on reinsert, without > ressorting to killing gpg-agent > --> probably with some scd-event magic that's beyond my know-how for > now... I'm using the attach 'scd-event' script to lock my display on card removal and to unlock it on card-insert. The real work in the script is at line 107++ Maybe it can serve you a bit. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ? guru at unixarea.de, ? http://www.unixarea.de/ ? +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub 8. Mai 1945: Wer nicht feiert hat den Krieg verloren. 8 de mayo de 1945: Quien no festeja perdi? la Guerra. May 8, 1945: Who does not celebrate lost the War. -------------- next part -------------- #!/bin/sh # # this script must be placed into GNUPGHOME dir and named 'scd-event'; # it is triggered by the scdaemon on card removal with the arg 'NOCARD' # it will also run delayd after card insertion and *after* the first access to the card # # we use this to lock the KDE screen on card removal and run a loop of # 'gpg2 --card-status' to unlock the screen after card insertion # # guru at unxarea.de, July 2017 echo $0 $* >> /tmp/scd-event.log PGM=scd-event reader_port= old_code=0x0000 new_code=0x0000 status= tick='`' prev= while [ $# -gt 0 ]; do arg="$1" case $arg in -*=*) optarg=$(echo "X$arg" | sed -e '1s/^X//' -e 's/[-_a-zA-Z0-9]*=//') ;; *) optarg= ;; esac if [ -n "$prev" ]; then eval "$prev=\$arg" prev= shift continue fi case $arg in --help|-h) cat <&2 exit 1 ;; *) break ;; esac shift done if [ -n "$prev" ]; then echo "$PGM: argument missing for option $tick$prev'" >&2 exit 1 fi cat <> /tmp/scd-event.log ======================== port: $reader_port old-code: $old_code new-code: $new_code status: $status EOF DISPLAY=:0 export DISPLAY if [ x$status = xNOCARD ]; then echo DISPLAY: $DISPLAY >> /tmp/scd-event.log echo /usr/local/lib/kde4/libexec/kscreenlocker_greet --immediateLock >> /tmp/scd-event.log nohup /usr/local/lib/kde4/libexec/kscreenlocker_greet --immediateLock & pid=$! echo ${pid} > /tmp/scd-event.pid echo locked by PID ${pid} >> /tmp/scd-event.log echo killing fetchmail >> /tmp/scd-event.log fetchmail -q while true; do # is the kscreenlocker_greet still running? user might have unlocked it with PAM /bin/kill -0 ${pid} || { echo kscreenlocker_greet ${pid} disappeared >> /tmp/scd-event.log break } # gpg2 --card-status >> /tmp/scd-event.log 2>> /tmp/scd-event.log # Signature key ....: 5E69 FBAC 1618 562C B3CB FBC1 47CC F7E4 76FE 9D11 gpg2 --card-status | grep '5E69 FBAC 1618 562C B3CB FBC1 47CC F7E4 76FE 9D11' >> /tmp/scd-event.log && { # OK, key is fine unlocking the movies echo OK, key is fine unlocking the movies, killall kscreenlocker_greet >> /tmp/scd-event.log killall kscreenlocker_greet fetchmail break } sleep 1 done fi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Oct 2 16:46:48 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 10:46:48 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> Message-ID: > In batch mode it can go higher.? I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the --enable-large-rsa flag. When did this get introduced? Why? What possible use case is there for this? From peter at digitalbrains.com Mon Oct 2 18:21:39 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 18:21:39 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> Message-ID: On 02/10/17 16:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the > --enable-large-rsa flag. Note that the key in question appears to be an ElGamal subkey, not RSA. Not that that makes a difference to your questions and sentiments :-). Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Mon Oct 2 20:39:39 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 11:39:39 -0700 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> Message-ID: <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Mon 2017-10-02 10:46:48 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> In batch mode it can go higher.? > > I was about to disagree with you when I discovered the > --enable-large-rsa flag. > > When did this get introduced? Why? What possible use case is there for > this? It was introduced in 2014 in git commit 534e2876acc05f9f8d9b54c18511fe768d77dfb5 on STABLE-BRANCH-1-4, which was subsequently ported to master. see also https://bugs.debian.org/739424 and https://dev.gnupg.org/T1732 here's the commit log: commit 534e2876acc05f9f8d9b54c18511fe768d77dfb5 Author: Daniel Kahn Gillmor Date: Fri Oct 3 12:01:11 2014 -0400 gpg: Add build and runtime support for larger RSA keys * configure.ac: Added --enable-large-secmem option. * g10/options.h: Add opt.flags.large_rsa. * g10/gpg.c: Contingent on configure option: adjust secmem size, add gpg --enable-large-rsa, bound to opt.flags.large_rsa. * g10/keygen.c: Adjust max RSA size based on opt.flags.large_rsa * doc/gpg.texi: Document --enable-large-rsa. -- Some older implementations built and used RSA keys up to 16Kib, but the larger secret keys now fail when used by more recent GnuPG, due to secure memory limitations. Building with ./configure --enable-large-secmem will make gpg capable of working with those secret keys, as well as permitting the use of a new gpg option --enable-large-rsa, which let gpg generate RSA keys up to 8Kib when used with --batch --gen-key. Debian-bug-id: 739424 Minor edits by wk. GnuPG-bug-id: 1732 Regards, --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Oct 2 21:04:07 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:04:07 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> > see also https://bugs.debian.org/739424 and https://dev.gnupg.org/T1732 > > here's the commit log: Thank you for digging this up. I'd like to open a discussion about removing this option. First, I think it was a misfeature from conception. The justification was, "Some older implementations built and used [large] RSA keys" -- which is absolutely true -- but there was no justification given to allowing RSA keys *generated today* to be of that size. Allowing GnuPG to import keys of that size might be necessary to give users an upgrade path; allowing GnuPG to *generate* keys of that size seems unjustified. Since we are no longer concerned with "older implementations" (which I'm assuming means "PGP 2.6 and its derivatives"), the original justification is gone. And on the downside, keeping this option in place encourages a kind of cryptofetishism where all that matters is key length. Anyone want to point out what I'm missing? I don't want to sound as if my mind is made up, but right now it truly seems to me the --enable-large-rsa option is a misfeature. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Mon Oct 2 22:12:22 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 13:12:22 -0700 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <87poa5nwbd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Mon 2017-10-02 15:04:07 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Anyone want to point out what I'm missing? I don't want to sound as if > my mind is made up, but right now it truly seems to me the > --enable-large-rsa option is a misfeature. I agree that there's no good reason to enable it by default. But in terms of being willing to make changes to the GnuPG option space that break backward compatibility for some users in order to improve the overall state of GnuPG crypto, removing --enable-large-rsa isn't anywhere *close* to the top of my list. Note that --enable-large-rsa still only allows creation 8Kibit RSA keys, not 10Kibit or 16Kibit keys like those reported in the original bugs, so it doesn't actually cater to the hard-core "keylength-fetishist" crowd. --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Mon Oct 2 23:38:36 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2017 17:38:36 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <87poa5nwbd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <87poa5nwbd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: > But in terms of being willing to make changes to the GnuPG option space > that break backward compatibility for some users in order to improve the > overall state of GnuPG crypto, removing --enable-large-rsa isn't > anywhere *close* to the top of my list. It's fine if it's not at the top of the list; but is there any compelling reason to not put it on the list? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 821 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 3 00:14:48 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:14:48 -0700 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <87poa5nwbd.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <878tgtnqnb.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Mon 2017-10-02 17:38:36 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> But in terms of being willing to make changes to the GnuPG option space >> that break backward compatibility for some users in order to improve the >> overall state of GnuPG crypto, removing --enable-large-rsa isn't >> anywhere *close* to the top of my list. > > It's fine if it's not at the top of the list; but is there any > compelling reason to not put it on the list? sure, it's a simple recompile away (or installation of old versions) for folks who want to enable it during key creation. why would we encourage those folks to run unmaintained versions, even if we think that their long-key-fetishism isn't particularly well-motivated? keeping the two-stage thing in place makes it clear that this hard boundary is a deliberate design decision, and some accomodation has been made, but that we have explicit defaults for a reason. Anyway, nothing on any list that actually deliberately "breaks backward compatibilty for some users" is acceptable in GnuPG's current development model afaict. if that's not the case, then we should probably start by specifically making a shared list of breaking changes and trying to prioritize them. --dkg From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Oct 3 09:12:12 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 03:12:12 -0400 Subject: Redundant certificate in keyring Message-ID: <79427349-4a5d-e03a-075e-84a5918eb6ed@sixdemonbag.org> I don't know how this came to pass, but: PS C:\Users\Robert J. Hansen\Documents> gpg --list-keys 12d9199d7b3b7495 pub dsa2048/12D9199D7B3B7495 2017-07-26 [SCA] 1BE9AAB825A55E48195F1A0312D9199D7B3B7495 uid [ unknown] Tobias Schultz sub elg2048/B57E2F27C75F8668 2017-07-26 [E] pub dsa2048/12D9199D7B3B7495 2017-07-26 [SCA] 1BE9AAB825A55E48195F1A0312D9199D7B3B7495 uid [ unknown] Tobias Schultz sub elg2048/B57E2F27C75F8668 2017-07-26 [E] (Windows 10, GnuPG 2.2.0.) Somehow, this cert got introduced into my keyring twice. I don't know how and I don't really know when; I only found out about it after a script I run every month broke horribly, since it expects a given cert to only appear once in the keyring. I don't ever edit my keybox file directly. Deleting that cert deleted only one of the two certs, too. There appears to be a bug in the keybox code; unfortunately, I'm not able to give much in the way of details. :( From wk at gnupg.org Tue Oct 3 12:28:52 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:28:52 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Mon, 2 Oct 2017 15:04:07 -0400") References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 2 Oct 2017 21:04, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: > I'd like to open a discussion about removing this option. Please not again. That whole largeRSA key mess was a compromise to silence a very few individuals who had, well, interesting ideas on required key sizes. Sometimes it is easier to add an option than to spend hours on discussing their non-need. It is kind of similar to Camellia or Brainpool - I don't see a reason for those alsorithms but if they are needed for policy or political reasons, let's add them and forget about it. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Tue Oct 3 12:40:05 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2017 12:40:05 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> (xstation's message of "Sun, 1 Oct 2017 10:18:34 -0700 (MST)") References: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> Message-ID: <873770y0oq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Sun, 1 Oct 2017 19:18, tim.smy at gmx.net said: > this 1024 key has a 8192 sub key what is te meaning of such a large sub key? It means that a user of that key has a way to identify that subkey by means outside of gpg. That user and the holder of that key also have verified every bit of the source of their OS, including compiler and compiler used to build the compiler, as well as the hardware, scrutinized the Intel ME, fixed all bugs in gpg, live in tempest shielded rooms several floors below the ground, and keep rubber hoses locked away. SCNR. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Oct 3 15:56:11 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:56:11 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <7891a615-58e4-d6bc-d726-1565d407deac@sixdemonbag.org> > That whole largeRSA key mess was a compromise to silence a very few > individuals who had, well, interesting ideas on required key sizes. As always, the needs of real users are paramount. If there are real users who will be impacted, that's all the justification needed. Consider my request withdrawn. :) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 821 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ndk.clanbo at gmail.com Tue Oct 3 15:00:18 2017 From: ndk.clanbo at gmail.com (NdK) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:00:18 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <873770y0oq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <1506878314970-0.post@n7.nabble.com> <873770y0oq.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <6cbd21ad-2f7c-f3fa-66f9-cb95fbc93fbd@gmail.com> Il 03/10/2017 12:40, Werner Koch ha scritto: [...] > scrutinized the Intel ME, fixed all bugs in gpg, live in tempest At least they should have shared the bugfixes! :) BYtE, Diego From alci at mecadu.org Wed Oct 4 10:13:18 2017 From: alci at mecadu.org (Franck Routier) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:13:18 +0200 Subject: Smartcard not seen when reinserted In-Reply-To: <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> Message-ID: Le 02/10/2017 ? 16:37, Matthias Apitz a ?crit : > El d?a lunes, octubre 02, 2017 a las 01:35:16p. m. +0200, Franck Routier escribi?: > >> My problem, in addition to the pin being cached "forever" (as long as >> the card is inserted, with no time limit), is that when I remove and >> reinsert the card, it is not recognized unless I restart gpg-agent. >> >> So here is what happens: >> >> card inserted >> pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested >> pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested >> pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested >> card removed (I don't like to let my card inserted, with no PIN >> validation needed !) >> card inserted --> card not seen (card error, >> OpenPGP card unavailable) >> gpgconf --kill gpg-agent --> card seen >> pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> PIN requested >> pam_poldi.so called (sudo) --> no PIN requested >> etc... >> >> Hence my questions: >> 1) can I force PIN for authentication each time I use it (it seems that >> the forcesig option is for signature only, not for authentication) >> 2) what can I do to have my card recognized on reinsert, without >> ressorting to killing gpg-agent >> --> probably with some scd-event magic that's beyond my know-how for >> now... > I'm using the attach 'scd-event' script to lock my display on card > removal and to unlock it on card-insert. The real work in the script is > at line 107++ > > Maybe it can serve you a bit. > > matthias Thanks Matthias for the input. I couldn't make the 'remove card' event trigger anything... (with NOCARD status). After browsing the internet a bit more, I finally tried to install pcscd and tell scdaemon not to use its internal CCID implementation, and this worked... It also solves my other problem (IPN code being cached "forever"), as I suppose pcscd reinitializes the card state after so time. So this is solved for, by using pcscd. Thanks again, Franck -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 801 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From whitey at posteo.net Wed Oct 4 18:13:00 2017 From: whitey at posteo.net (Whitey) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 16:13:00 +0000 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: Werner Koch wrote: > Please not again. That whole largeRSA key mess was a compromise to > silence a very few individuals who had, well, interesting ideas on > required key sizes. Sometimes it is easier to add an option than to > spend hours on discussing their non-need. It is kind of similar to > Camellia or Brainpool - I don't see a reason for those alsorithms but if > they are needed for policy or political reasons, let's add them and > forget about it. Are those the only two in GnuPG you don't see a need for? What algorithms do you prefer? -- Whitey From tlikonen at iki.fi Wed Oct 4 20:01:09 2017 From: tlikonen at iki.fi (Teemu Likonen) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2017 21:01:09 +0300 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: (Franck Routier's message of "Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:13:18 +0200") References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> A three-part recipe for small annoyance: 1. "auto-key-retrieve" in gpg.conf 2. Automatic signature verification in email client. 3. The email I'm about to read was signed by a key that's not on keyservers. The result: There's a delay of several seconds every time I open the message and in the end my email client (Gnus) says: [[PGP Signed Part:No public key for B47D162E09E21476 created at 2017-10-04T11:13:25+0300 using RSA]] :-) -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-.. // // PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 /// -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 487 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Oct 4 22:29:41 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:29:41 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> > Are those the only two in GnuPG you don't see a need for? What > algorithms do you prefer? I know this wasn't addressed to me, but what the heck. I won't share my preferences, but this is some modestly-accurate history. Way back when, DSA and Elgamal had to be the defaults in OpenPGP because RSA Data Security held the patent on the RSA algorithm, whereas DSA and Elgamal were patent-free. That patent was relinquished in September of 2000. Twofish became part of the suite of ciphers with PGP 7, and GnuPG had to support it because PGP 7 made it their default. In PGP 7.1 they switched to AES (which had just been released) but left Twofish in because Twofish had Schneier cachet. This is also probably why Blowfish is still an approved algorithm. IDEA continued to be supported almost entirely for backwards compatibility with PGP 2.6; it has not held up at all well, and is probably the weakest cipher in the suite. (I have heard it said Blowfish was introduced to the spec as a fallback in case CAST5 turned out to have flaws. Given how similar CAST5 and Blowfish are, design-wise, if this is true I think it was terrible reasoning.) So right there, you can see that DSA, Elgamal, Twofish, and Blowfish, all exist in the spec for non-engineering reasons: patent infringement, fame of designer, backwards compatibility, etc. I won't bore you with my list of preferred algos, though. :) From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 5 09:00:18 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:00:18 +0200 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> (Teemu Likonen's message of "Wed, 04 Oct 2017 21:01:09 +0300") References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> Message-ID: <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 20:01, tlikonen at iki.fi said: > The result: There's a delay of several seconds every time I open the > message and in the end my email client (Gnus) says: I have exactly the same problem but I do it anwyat - there is not much we can do about it. The default timeout for such lookups are 2 seconds. You can lower this to one second using connect-quick-timeout 1 in dirmngr.conf. A bit more annoying keyserver DNS entries with service records, which will all be tried in turn until one is found. That can multiply the timeout. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 5 09:19:10 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:19:10 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Wed, 4 Oct 2017 16:29:41 -0400") References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 22:29, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: > I know this wasn't addressed to me, but what the heck. I won't share my > preferences, but this is some modestly-accurate history. Thanks for sharing the history; here are some of my remarks. > Twofish became part of the suite of ciphers with PGP 7, and GnuPG had to Back in 1998/1999 we were keen to have a 128 bit block cipher in OpenPGP. The PGP folks and me discussed this and our bets were on Twofish as a very promising candidate for the AES competition. Thus we went for that before we added AES 1.5 years later. > (I have heard it said Blowfish was introduced to the spec as a fallback > in case CAST5 turned out to have flaws. Given how similar CAST5 and Blowfish used to be the only freely available cipher when I started with gpg. Thus it was a natural choice for free software. The patent state of CAST5 was not fully clear back then and thus gpg used Blowfish up until the OpenPGP WG agreed on CAST5 (which was used by PGP-5) and removed the uncertainty on the patent state. Blowfish was kept as an optional algorithm because it was used by gpg. The OpenPGP preference system allowed us to do this without running into interop problems. > I won't bore you with my list of preferred algos, though. :) The default algorithms of GnuPG should be a good choice in any case. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Oct 5 18:39:44 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:39:44 -0400 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <3a92fbba-160d-6617-e38a-db1f41400336@sixdemonbag.org> > Back in 1998/1999 we were keen to have a 128 bit block cipher in > OpenPGP. The PGP folks and me discussed this and our bets were on > Twofish as a very promising candidate for the AES competition. Thus we > went for that before we added AES 1.5 years later. I was unaware GnuPG had a role in this decision: thank you for the clarification. :) > Blowfish used to be the only freely available cipher when I started with > gpg. ... wait, 3DES was patent-encumbered? From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 5 19:01:54 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 19:01:54 +0200 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <3a92fbba-160d-6617-e38a-db1f41400336@sixdemonbag.org> (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Thu, 5 Oct 2017 12:39:44 -0400") References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <3a92fbba-160d-6617-e38a-db1f41400336@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <87shexv88t.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 18:39, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: >> Blowfish used to be the only freely available cipher when I started with >> gpg. > > ... wait, 3DES was patent-encumbered? Not that I know. But it was old and Blowfish was everywhere (in particular due to Schneier's book Applied Crypto). The task was to replace the patented IDEA cipher and (single-)DES had a bad repudiation due to the EFF's DES cracker. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tlikonen at iki.fi Thu Oct 5 19:17:51 2017 From: tlikonen at iki.fi (Teemu Likonen) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:17:51 +0300 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> (Werner Koch's message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2017 09:00:18 +0200") References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87poa1ecow.fsf@mithlond.arda> Werner Koch [2017-10-05 09:00:18+02] wrote: > I have exactly the same problem but I do it anwyat - there is not much > we can do about it. The default timeout for such lookups are 2 seconds. > You can lower this to one second using > > connect-quick-timeout 1 > > in dirmngr.conf. Thanks. That helps noticeably. And yes, I use auto-key-retrieve anyway. It's a nice feature. I have sometimes persuaded people to upload their key to the server pool. -- /// Teemu Likonen - .-.. // // PGP: 4E10 55DC 84E9 DFF6 13D7 8557 719D 69D3 2453 9450 /// -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 487 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 5 21:10:26 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 21:10:26 +0200 Subject: GnuPG-card works in the Ubuntu smartphone In-Reply-To: <20170924085935.GA2714@c720-r314251> (Matthias Apitz's message of "Sun, 24 Sep 2017 10:59:35 +0200") References: <20170922152401.GA3739@c720-r314251> <87r2uyegv1.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170922184843.GA2196@c720-r314251> <20170922201936.GA4052@c720-r314251> <20170923084745.GA3490@c720-r314251> <87k20od1on.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170924085935.GA2714@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <871smhv2al.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Hi! Matthias wrote a HOWTO for the GnuPG blog: Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Thu Oct 5 21:06:25 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2017 12:06:25 -0700 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87lgkpmn2m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Thu 2017-10-05 09:00:18 +0200, Werner Koch wrote: > I have exactly the same problem but I do it anwyat - there is not much > we can do about it. The default timeout for such lookups are 2 seconds. > You can lower this to one second using > > connect-quick-timeout 1 A more user-friendly approach (setting aside current architecture and privacy concerns) would be to fire off a retrieval in the background and to return immediately with seomthing like "unknown key, retrieval attempted?" Even better would be to have some sort of asynchronous callback that happens after the key is effectively retreived, so that whatever user interface displays the response could update when (if) the key comes in. gpg isn't currently constructed to do this kind of asynchronous user interaction, however. --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ndk.clanbo at gmail.com Thu Oct 5 22:11:24 2017 From: ndk.clanbo at gmail.com (NdK) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 22:11:24 +0200 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87lgkpmn2m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87lgkpmn2m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <6f1f7f52-e146-0bb7-8dac-d45833d86bc7@gmail.com> Il 05/10/2017 21:06, Daniel Kahn Gillmor ha scritto: > gpg isn't currently constructed to do this kind of asynchronous user > interaction, however. But the mail client could flag the message "key retrieval failed". Then, the delay is only on the first attempt. Unless the user un-flags that message. BYtE, Diego From wk at gnupg.org Fri Oct 6 09:55:56 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2017 09:55:56 +0200 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87lgkpmn2m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> (Daniel Kahn Gillmor's message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2017 12:06:25 -0700") References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87lgkpmn2m.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <87lgkou2ur.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 21:06, dkg at fifthhorseman.net said: > A more user-friendly approach (setting aside current architecture and > privacy concerns) would be to fire off a retrieval in the background and > to return immediately with seomthing like "unknown key, retrieval Actually a similar thing was on the plan for 2.2 but I decided not to wait any longer with a release. The idea is to put the request on a background list but return to the user after a quite short timeout. > Even better would be to have some sort of asynchronous callback that > happens after the key is effectively retreived, so that whatever user > interface displays the response could update when (if) the key comes in. MUA should be able to implement that on ist own. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ben at adversary.org Sat Oct 7 16:52:34 2017 From: ben at adversary.org (Ben McGinnes) Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2017 01:52:34 +1100 Subject: 1024 key with large sub key In-Reply-To: <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <60018514-efb7-4712-a2c8-19631b9e58ba@email.android.com> <87zi99o0lw.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9b1f8365-1295-c3ee-7bce-f1bb12b600f0@sixdemonbag.org> <877ewcy17f.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <15915b62-977e-975f-494b-4df32b802566@sixdemonbag.org> <87a816xdsh.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <20171007145234.qcxdtvnmkxjhtvys@adversary.org> On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 07:19:10AM +0000, Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 22:29, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: > >> Twofish became part of the suite of ciphers with PGP 7, and GnuPG >> had to > > Back in 1998/1999 we were keen to have a 128 bit block cipher in > OpenPGP. The PGP folks and me discussed this and our bets were on > Twofish as a very promising candidate for the AES competition. Thus > we went for that before we added AES 1.5 years later. I'm surprised you all managed to get through trawling through these histories of cipher additions without someone piping up with yet another request to include the Serpent cipher. Sorry Werner, couldn't resist. :P Regards, Ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com Sat Oct 7 09:06:17 2017 From: rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com (rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:06:17 +0200 Subject: smartcard V1.1 and 2048 RSA Message-ID: <6d9db769-ed5d-4d20-8ee7-fbea38da1057@rennfrikadelle.googlemail.com> Hello list, is it possible to create one single RSA-2048 key on a openPGP smartcard v1.1 instead of a key with 2 or 3 1024-RSA subkeys? Thank you! From rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com Sat Oct 7 09:08:38 2017 From: rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com (rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com) Date: Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:08:38 +0200 Subject: libpampoldi Message-ID: I?d like to play with libpampoldi, but can?t find it nowhere. Has poldi been abandoned or is it still under some development? Does it at least get the serious flaws fixed, if still under deleopmnet? best regards From alex at nitrokey.com Mon Oct 9 09:07:52 2017 From: alex at nitrokey.com (Alexander Paetzelt | Nitrokey) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 09:07:52 +0200 Subject: libpampoldi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4b805574-c7f8-b26e-1734-3c8ced80c052@nitrokey.com> Hi, as far as I know poldi did not get updates for a long time. It is either abandoned or considered "finished". Well, there probably isn't changing a lot in this topic anyway. Which OS do you use? It is available for Debian-like Distros and Arch Linux for sure. I did not looked for other Distros yet. Kind regards Alex On 10/07/2017 09:08 AM, rennfrikadelle--- via Gnupg-users wrote: > I?d like to play with libpampoldi, but can?t find it nowhere. > Has poldi been abandoned or is it still under some development? > > Does it at least get the serious flaws fixed, if still under deleopmnet? > > > best regards > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From alci at mecadu.org Mon Oct 9 10:37:48 2017 From: alci at mecadu.org (Alci) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:37:48 +0200 Subject: libpampoldi In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think poldi source code caan be found here: https://github.com/gpg/poldi After a long inactivity, there has been commit less rhan one year ago. It is available and working in ubuntu as well. Regards, Franck Envoy? depuis mon smartphone Sony Xperia? ---- rennfrikadelle--- via Gnupg-users a ?crit ---- >I?d like to play with libpampoldi, but can?t find it nowhere. >Has poldi been abandoned or is it still under some development? > >Does it at least get the serious flaws fixed, if still under deleopmnet? > > >best regards > >_______________________________________________ >Gnupg-users mailing list >Gnupg-users at gnupg.org >http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wk at gnupg.org Mon Oct 9 12:54:31 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:54:31 +0200 Subject: libpampoldi In-Reply-To: (alci@mecadu.org's message of "Mon, 09 Oct 2017 10:37:48 +0200") References: Message-ID: <87o9pgoal4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:37, alci at mecadu.org said: > I think poldi source code caan be found here: https://github.com/gpg/poldi Note that the canonical location for Poldi is git://git.gnupg.org/poldi.git The github page actually states that this is an unofficial mirror. If you want to report a bug etc. please use http://dev/gnupg.org and use the tag "poldi". Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com Mon Oct 9 15:04:11 2017 From: rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com (rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:04:11 +0200 Subject: libpampoldi In-Reply-To: <87o9pgoal4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87o9pgoal4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:37, alci at mecadu.org said: >> I think poldi source code caan be found here: https://github.com/gpg/poldi > > Note that the canonical location for Poldi is > > git://git.gnupg.org/poldi.git > > The github page actually states that this is an unofficial mirror. If > you want to report a bug etc. please use http://dev/gnupg.org and use > the tag "poldi". Thanks for replying. From alex at nitrokey.com Mon Oct 9 15:04:48 2017 From: alex at nitrokey.com (Alexander Paetzelt | Nitrokey) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:04:48 +0200 Subject: Available Key Attributes Options Message-ID: <1e35046d-31e9-451c-e82a-9ad24116bb4b@nitrokey.com> Hello, I already asked a similar question but wasn't so clear what I really need, so I give it a new try. With these kind of commands $ gpg-connect-agent "SCD SETATTR KEY-ATTR --force 1 22 ed25519" /bye $ gpg-connect-agent "SCD SETATTR KEY-ATTR --force 2 18 cv25519" /bye $ gpg-connect-agent "SCD SETATTR KEY-ATTR --force 2 18 nistp256" /bye I can manipulate the key attributes. But I am wondering where I can find out what options I have for the last to paramters. So when do I have to use the '22' and in which case a '18'? Does it say something about the used key-method? And what different options are there for ECC-keys? Is there an extensive list? How is for example brainpool called and which number do I have to use? I hope you can help me to make an more or less extensive list. Maybe one can even extent this https://wiki.gnupg.org/ECC afterwards? Kind regards Alex -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com Mon Oct 9 15:11:16 2017 From: rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com (rennfrikadelle at googlemail.com) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:11:16 +0200 Subject: disabled keys Message-ID: <850f49ef-a8cd-8c5c-8b39-6b1ce32f3c26@rennfrikadelle.googlemail.com> Hello, if a key is disabled, does that prevent operations that are applied on the whole key ring? E.g. does --refresh-keys skip disabled keys? Thanks From sandhya.sharma at morpho.com Mon Oct 9 14:03:50 2017 From: sandhya.sharma at morpho.com (SHARMA Sandhya (MORPHO)) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 12:03:50 +0000 Subject: Use of Passphrase Callback Message-ID: Reminder From: SHARMA Sandhya (MORPHO) Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 5:35 PM To: 'gnupg-users at gnupg.org' Subject: RE: Use of Passphrase Callback Hello, Does anyone has idea how to implement this. As I have urgent business need to do it ASAP. Thanks, Sandhya From: SHARMA Sandhya (MORPHO) Sent: Friday, September 22, 2017 6:21 PM To: 'gnupg-users at gnupg.org' > Subject: Use of Passphrase Callback Hello, I am Using gnupg on windows and want to use "Passphrase Callback" functionality to input password for private key. My current lines of code is: error = gpgme_set_pinentry_mode(context,GPGME_PINENTRY_MODE_LOOPBACK); gpgme_passphrase_cb_t func = &passphrase_callback; gpgme_pinentry_mode_t pinMode = gpgme_get_pinentry_mode(context); void *pp = 0; gpgme_set_passphrase_cb(context,func,pp); and declaration of gpgme_passphrase_cb_t is gpgme_error_t passphrase_callback(void *opaque, const char *uid_hint, const char *desc,int prev_was_bad, int fd) but breakpoint on this function never hits. Kindly provide help on this or any example used to implement Passphrase CallBack. Thanks & Regards, Sandhya Sharma # " This e-mail and any attached documents may contain confidential or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, copying of this e-mail and any attachments thereto or use of their contents by any means whatsoever is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this e-mail and all attached documents from your computer system." # -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wk at gnupg.org Mon Oct 9 16:57:35 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:57:35 +0200 Subject: Available Key Attributes Options In-Reply-To: <1e35046d-31e9-451c-e82a-9ad24116bb4b@nitrokey.com> (Alexander Paetzelt's message of "Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:04:48 +0200") References: <1e35046d-31e9-451c-e82a-9ad24116bb4b@nitrokey.com> Message-ID: <87h8v8nzc0.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:04, alex at nitrokey.com said: > I can manipulate the key attributes. But I am wondering where I can find > out what options I have for the last to paramters. Use the source, Luke. > So when do I have to use the '22' and in which case a '18'? Does it say That is the OpenPGP algorithm number: 22 = EdDSA, 18 = ECDH. > there for ECC-keys? Is there an extensive list? How is for example > brainpool called and which number do I have to use? In gnupg/scd/app-openpgp.c:do_setattr you will find the mapping from the name to the actual DO as specified in the OpenPGP card specs [1]. Some mappings can't be done directly and it will instead be done by calling a function, for example In (VALUE,VALUELEN), it expects following string: RSA: "--force rsa" ECC: "--force " */ static gpg_error_t change_keyattr_from_string (app_t app, With the exception of the new ECC features the source of GPA, and in particular gpa/src/cm-openpgp.c, is a good example on how to control scdaemon from another application. Salam-Shalom, Werner [1] https://gnupg.org/ftp/specs/ -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefan.claas at posteo.de Mon Oct 9 18:53:35 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:53:35 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? Message-ID: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Hi all, A question for the experts. I plan to buy me a little Netbook next year, to use it as an Offline Computer, for GnuPG usage. The idea is to use my Online Computer to send and receive messages and to encrypt and decrypt messages to use the Offline Computer. So far so good. My question is what is the best practice to transfer the Data between those two Computers? I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB device. My idea is to use the software minimodem between the two Computers, connected, when required, via audio cables. Is this a good idea, or does something speaks against this method? Any thoughts are welcome! Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas From peter at digitalbrains.com Mon Oct 9 20:12:33 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:12:33 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> On 09/10/17 18:53, Stefan Claas wrote: > My idea is to use the software minimodem between the two > Computers, connected, when required, via audio cables. I think perhaps this is a little low-bandwidth for security updates for your OS. By the way, you could use a USB-to-serial converter and use a serial cable. The problem with USB is sharing the same USB device between multiple computers. If you always use the same converter in the same computer, it's not an infection vector. But this is still very low bandwidth. Many USB-to-serial converters can go to 0.5 Mbit/s. I think the max I've seen is 2 Mbit/s. So it's not as low as the ol' 115k2 anymore. I haven't read about SD cards being infection vectors, and they have many gigabytes. Enough for, for example, a mirror of the debian-security archive for your architecture. I do know about subverting SATA harddisks, but haven't heard about it actually being used, unlike USB. SATA sounds reasonable as well. For both SD cards and SATA harddisks, you could again use USB-to-X converters, as long as they are dedicated to your offline system. This is just my personal opinion, and should be read as ideas rather than authority (not that I claim to have any, that's precisely the point). Meanwhile, if somebody knows of a transfer method that has enough bandwidth to be able to keep a Debian system up-to-date, or a FreeBSD system alternatively, that looks better than SD-card or SATA/PATA, I'm interested as well. I'd rather have something better. My 2 cents, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From listofactor at mail.ru Mon Oct 9 20:05:20 2017 From: listofactor at mail.ru (listo factor) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:05:20 +0000 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: Use a USB floppy disk reader/writer and shred the floppies with cleartext after the use. Writing sensitive cleartext to USB flash "drives" that could potentially fall into the adversary's hands should be avoided. From stefan.claas at posteo.de Mon Oct 9 21:14:07 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:14:07 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <20171009211351.6b146b32@iria.my-fqdn.de> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 20:12:33 +0200, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 09/10/17 18:53, Stefan Claas wrote: > > My idea is to use the software minimodem between the two > > Computers, connected, when required, via audio cables. > > I think perhaps this is a little low-bandwidth for security updates > for your OS. By the way, you could use a USB-to-serial converter and > use a serial cable. The problem with USB is sharing the same USB > device between multiple computers. If you always use the same > converter in the same computer, it's not an infection vector. But > this is still very low bandwidth. Many USB-to-serial converters can > go to 0.5 Mbit/s. I think the max I've seen is 2 Mbit/s. So it's not > as low as the ol' 115k2 anymore. > > I haven't read about SD cards being infection vectors, and they have > many gigabytes. Enough for, for example, a mirror of the > debian-security archive for your architecture. > > I do know about subverting SATA harddisks, but haven't heard about it > actually being used, unlike USB. SATA sounds reasonable as well. > > For both SD cards and SATA harddisks, you could again use USB-to-X > converters, as long as they are dedicated to your offline system. Thank you very much for your information, much appreciated! To be more precise, when i will buy me an Offline Computer my idea was that it will be *never* connected to the Internet. So i thought maybe i buy one, let's say with Windows 10, never update or upgrade it due to it's permanent offline state, download once gpg4win, look at the checksum of gpg4win.exe, maybe extract the package on an Online Computer, transfer the gpg4win.exe via minimodem, even if it takes a very long time. Cross compile minimodem with CygWin and transfer with minimodem the .exe and cygwin.dll to the offline computer as well. Should i receive a PGP/MIME Message i would then use a Python script from Github to convert the message on my Online Computer to PGP/Inline. That was/is my idea. But thanks for pointing out the USB-to-serial converter! Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas From stefan.claas at posteo.de Mon Oct 9 22:40:14 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:40:14 +0200 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <20171009223947.7e9d9dab@iria.my-fqdn.de> On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 18:05:20 +0000, listo factor via Gnupg-users wrote: > Use a USB floppy disk reader/writer and shred the floppies with > cleartext after the use. Writing sensitive cleartext to USB flash > "drives" that could potentially fall into the adversary's hands > should be avoided. Thank you very much for the tip! I thought that floppy disks would be no longer available, but a quick search on Amazon revealed that they are still for sale. Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Oct 10 03:57:37 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 21:57:37 -0400 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: > I think perhaps this is a little low-bandwidth for security updates for > your OS. By the way, you could use a USB-to-serial converter and use a > serial cable. The problem with USB is sharing the same USB device > between multiple computers. If you always use the same converter in the > same computer, it's not an infection vector. But this is still very low > bandwidth. Many USB-to-serial converters can go to 0.5 Mbit/s. I think > the max I've seen is 2 Mbit/s. So it's not as low as the ol' 115k2 anymore. In '07, my research group developed some really low-tech data transfer with admirable characteristics: it was provably one-way data transfer. Get a serial cable and cut it in half. On one end attach a laser; on the other end attach a photoreceptor. Mount the two. You now have a data diode -- a "cable" over which data can only flow in one direction. We had to write custom drivers for it, but it wasn't hard. If memory serves we weren't able to go over about 300 baud. This was by design: our photoreceptor was ***old*** (like 1960s tech) and had a relatively long cycling period after each pulse. The point of using the old photoreceptor was that way we were dead certain there was no exploitable integrated circuit in the photoreceptor... > I haven't read about SD cards being infection vectors Yep, they are. Seen them myself in the malware lab. No further comment available, as I'm bound by NDA-of-doom. But yes, SD cards have been known to be infection vectors. If you think about it for a while I'm pretty sure you'll figure out how, but I unfortunately cannot connect the dots for you. > I do know about subverting SATA harddisks, but haven't heard about it > actually being used, unlike USB. SATA sounds reasonable as well. Yep! Been done. SATA firmware has been exploited via the JTAG interface, new firmware loaded onto it, and been used as a vector. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Oct 10 04:06:17 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:06:17 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU Message-ID: A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be replaced with "GNU/Linux". I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make sure that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting the proposal here for community feedback. If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 04:30:22 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:30:22 -0300 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-09 01:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: > Hi all, > > A question for the experts. > > I plan to buy me a little Netbook next year, to use it as an > Offline Computer, for GnuPG usage. The idea is to use my Online > Computer to send and receive messages and to encrypt and decrypt > messages to use the Offline Computer. So far so good. My question > is what is the best practice to transfer the Data between those > two Computers? > > I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use > trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB > device. > > My idea is to use the software minimodem between the two > Computers, connected, when required, via audio cables. > > Is this a good idea, or does something speaks against this method? > > Any thoughts are welcome! > > Regards Stefan > I'm a little surprised no one has reminded us that there are no best practices, just practices that serve our needs depending on what value we perceive our data to have and what we perceive the capabilities of our adversaries to have, and what the consequences of compromise are. After saying all that I recall reading an article by the Washington Post (if I recall correctly) that they use two computers in their "safe-drop" system. Again, IIRC, the computer connected to the Internet is not ever connected to the computer used to encrypt or decrypt messages. The computer used to encrypt/decrypt is not connected to anything and is booted from a read-only CDROM which also has any required software. Data transfer is done by recording to a write-once CDROM. No clear text is ever on the computer connected to the Internet. There are lots of other details to think about (defense in depth) Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3DC6AAoJEOJfpr8UVxtki/YH/Rj7+gl6usd3twkGQ10VuboR qHBBpd+0zMrjfHDS713K50wexox0noCoUd7NTLt1pI8Lrl5c56+pCgdIIG+AjToX XeOGXmydvS195EDBkuJM0WZhfmFLwN23sIHUXo2Pv/TpOJOQ23scsXRgNxM0ApeA 07HHD/Uh2AT9lo32i0kOx5zUkJLhdd63mhyHCkvYDaZxxGy29RsnwiEmG7YG69m6 faNxsRsecPBl1JnB/sPFdOYETjJHpVwmuWTwpGMQDFEZT37n8D8Ib66Tv7iPxMyr RUxUNbZ5mXNqQ/TAl/ZQyejP2uIEo6Erq9w+/MHDANWe752s4l6HLnitQJXSr/M= =NVie -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 04:51:29 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:51:29 -0300 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-09 11:30 PM, Duane Whitty wrote: > > > On 17-10-09 01:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: >> Hi all, > >> A question for the experts. > >> I plan to buy me a little Netbook next year, to use it as an >> Offline Computer, for GnuPG usage. The idea is to use my Online >> Computer to send and receive messages and to encrypt and decrypt >> messages to use the Offline Computer. So far so good. My >> question is what is the best practice to transfer the Data >> between those two Computers? > >> I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use >> trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB >> device. > >> My idea is to use the software minimodem between the two >> Computers, connected, when required, via audio cables. > >> Is this a good idea, or does something speaks against this >> method? > >> Any thoughts are welcome! > >> Regards Stefan > > > I'm a little surprised no one has reminded us that there are no > best practices, just practices that serve our needs depending on > what value we perceive our data to have and what we perceive the > capabilities of our adversaries to have, and what the consequences > of compromise are. > > After saying all that I recall reading an article by the > Washington Post (if I recall correctly) that they use two computers > in their "safe-drop" system. Again, IIRC, the computer connected > to the Internet is not ever connected to the computer used to > encrypt or decrypt messages. The computer used to encrypt/decrypt > is not connected to anything and is booted from a read-only CDROM > which also has any required software. Data transfer is done by > recording to a write-once CDROM. No clear text is ever on the > computer connected to the Internet. There are lots of other > details to think about (defense in depth) > > Best Regards, Duane > > I find this topic quite interesting so if I may comment a little more... Firstly, I think it's really easy to get carried away here with security measures one probably doesn't really need. If you do have a need for air-gapped computers then you also have a need for a lot of other security measures. 1) How good are the locks on the doors to your house? 2) What about your windows? 3) What about fire protection? 4) What about data backups? 5) Do you have a policy and mechanism in place for how long you keep dat a? 6) How about backup security, both on-site and off-site? 7) What mechanism will you use for media destruction when your policy indicates you don't need certain data any longer? 8) How are you protecting your public/private keys? 9)... I could continue to go on but maybe I'm getting carried away here. The point I'm trying to make is that if there are lots of attack vectors and just focusing on where you encrypt/decrypt messages doesn't necessarily make you that much more protected. Just my opinion and it's not meant as criticism just as "food for though t" Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3DWtAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkvHwH/1Bhxs7BbkE9046GI5b6nTJi bkpEzamdKldIpA4TLPdxcfg1g5pNetddXCfXSxbvqcHE/yJyt57/4Uu4uucRHZfy WPAdyXzu4LfZbGuMZNApvyJhCulzHxbFRbbCDe0B0+Tpe/tD/x65jbys8U3KpcN9 bX4V4Lml5BkjbSLGxBMNhfu53lDS7Oc8fB+pDhxFjsKtz4xEF5FRXPdep3hm6gbF pzyX/0gCnyy2Lmb4QOowK08xHooPQcEf/g41pns4c/sXqRaNNm53ehlFtmtLsb9o HLkLHlibo6r3yhwTXVmJfmA37F+aD33i9NIFbreEJlclidEwnKTYapg/WSPo2cA= =BlK7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From fa-ml at ariis.it Tue Oct 10 05:20:33 2017 From: fa-ml at ariis.it (Francesco Ariis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 05:20:33 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010032033.ayzlyzhts5xrc7yw@x60s.casa> Hello Robert, On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:06:17PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". A request has been made by whom? > I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make sure > that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting the > proposal here for community feedback. > > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. I would say it is a fair change. From michael at englehorn.com Tue Oct 10 06:28:39 2017 From: michael at englehorn.com (Michael Englehorn) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2017 23:28:39 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <75aeddbc1ac4d1047d2e6eb5b15d2f0b@englehorn.com> On 2017-10-09 21:06, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". I think it's redundant, besides, what if I were to replace all of the userland utilities with my own, or some other non-gnu userland? It would still be Linux, and Gnupg would continue working (provided the new userland could compile it). ;) Also, I don't think "GNU/Linux" is a trademark of Linus. Linux is more generic and possibly more correct than GNU/Linux. -- |-------------------+----------------------------------------------------| | Michael Englehorn | michael at englehorn.com | | Twitter | K0HAX | | Github | https://github.com/K0HAX | | GPG Fingerprint | CC10 C6F7 517C C64C FC4B A9D9 7502 F475 E7B6 CCB9 | |-------------------+----------------------------------------------------| From angel at pgp.16bits.net Tue Oct 10 01:51:23 2017 From: angel at pgp.16bits.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?=C1ngel?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:51:23 +0200 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <1507593083.924.12.camel@16bits.net> On 2017-10-09 at 18:05 +0000, listo factor wrote: > Use a USB floppy disk reader/writer and shred the floppies with > cleartext after the use. Writing sensitive cleartext to USB flash > "drives" that could potentially fall into the adversary's hands should > be avoided. What is generally used in these cases (eg. handling a Snowden leak) is to encrypt the files before storing them into the "drive" that moves between computers (be that a usb key, a floppy...). Thus, the secret data is an opaque blob even to an evil storage. You may use whatever encryption, from a gpg-transfer-key to simply simmetric encryption with a random one-use password (you only need to enter it once, or at most twice). PS: If you are going to such length for having a secure computer, Windows 10 may not be the most trustable OS. PS2: Rather than transfer executable files from the online to the offline computers, I would recommend doing it the opposite way: move the source code to the offline computer if needed, review it, compile there, and move the compiled code from the offline to the online computer. So that the compiled programs flow from higher security level to lower level. Best regards From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 08:26:10 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 02:26:10 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Mon 2017-10-09 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make sure > that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting the > proposal here for community feedback. > > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. Is there a specific patch to consider? I wouldn't agree to a blind s~Linux~GNU/Linux~g replacement, but for specific instances it's likely to be a quite reasonable request. Not all instances of "Linux" are generically replaceable by GNU/Linux -- for instance, if we're talking specifically about the kernel, then it should remain just Linux (e.g. "Android uses the Linux kernel"). However, if the GnuPG FAQ is talking about an operating system built from the Linux kernel and the GNU userland (coreutils, libc, etc), then "GNU/Linux" is not only the respectful term to use, it's the more accurate and precise term. Note that GnuPG also builds against (and runs on) other operating systems that use GNU but do *not* use Linux, such as Debian's GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd ports. https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ https://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ The FAQ should be both accurate and precise. We don't want users thinking that GnuPG will run on Android just because Android is a Linux operating system. Regards, --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From harningt at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 07:20:42 2017 From: harningt at gmail.com (Thomas Harning Jr.) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 01:20:42 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010032033.ayzlyzhts5xrc7yw@x60s.casa> References: <20171010032033.ayzlyzhts5xrc7yw@x60s.casa> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 11:20 PM, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Hello Robert, > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:06:17PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be >> replaced with "GNU/Linux". > GNU/Linux assumes a GNU userland. There exists some with it not as default. Alpine in its minimal state uses busybox for much functionality. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Tue Oct 10 08:46:05 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 02:46:05 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> > However, if the GnuPG FAQ is talking about an operating system built > from the Linux kernel and the GNU userland (coreutils, libc, etc), then > "GNU/Linux" is not only the respectful term to use, it's the more > accurate and precise term. I disagree. It's a more political term. With respect to specific distros, we ought use the name the distro prefers. The Fedora Project releases Fedora, not Fedora GNU/Linux. The Debian guys release Debian GNU/Linux, not Debian Linux. The people who set up these distros have given their distros names, and it seems appropriate to use the names properly. It is as inappropriate to refer to Debian Linux as it is to refer to Fedora GNU/Linux: in both cases that's rejecting the community's right to name their distro what they wish. When speaking generically about operating systems using the Linux kernel, there it seems GNU is also inappropriate. GNU is not an inseparable part of Linux; we should not promulgate the myth they are. In the FAQ, wherever "Linux" is used as a generic descriptor it is in a context where the presence of GNU utilities is irrelevant. Example: "there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on Linux systems." The truth/validity of that statement is in no way dependent on whether one's talking about a system that uses the GNU userland or the BSD userland. In those cases where "Linux" is used to open a segment detailing how GnuPG works on different distros, I use the distro's preferred full name or shortened name: Debian GNU/Linux Ubuntu OpenSUSE Fedora CentOS RHEL Slackware Gentoo > Note that GnuPG also builds against (and runs on) other operating > systems that use GNU but do *not* use Linux, such as Debian's > GNU/kFreeBSD and GNU/Hurd ports. Yes, but they aren't mentioned in the FAQ. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 821 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From listofactor at mail.ru Tue Oct 10 08:41:08 2017 From: listofactor at mail.ru (listo factor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 06:41:08 +0000 Subject: Attack costs In-Reply-To: <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> Message-ID: <6e502541-766e-ed75-8ae9-f42258b6719f@mail.ru> > Firstly, I think it's really easy to get carried away here with > security measures one probably doesn't really need. If you do have a > need for air-gapped computers then you also have a need for a lot of > other security measures. > > 1) How good are the locks on the doors to your house? > 2) What about your windows? (...) > Just my opinion and it's not meant as criticism just as "food for thought" Well, here goes: A competent adversary can spend $100K to develop and deploy a software tool that will compromise computers of one thousand of its opponents. Thus the cost per compromised computer is $100.- If it costs $1000.- per opponent to send an operative (or, more likely, a team of operatives) to physically enter the computer location in order to compromise it, the total cost to the attacker is one million. The numbers are, obviously, for illustrative purposes only. But my thoughts is this: when it comes to mass surveillance, over-the-net attacks may indeed be of significantly greater concern than physical attacks. (Another, perhaps tangential, thought: in the era of mass surveillance, money is the principal limiting factor for a whole class of large institutional attackers - both ethical and legal limitations are long gone). From wk at gnupg.org Tue Oct 10 09:46:44 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:46:44 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:06:17 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87376rmom3.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 04:06, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". Some distros call themselves "Foo GNU/Linux" and if the part of the FAQ is about this specific distro, you should call it this way. However in most cases "Linux" describes the environment well enough and there is no need to confuse people. I'd say, keep it as it is. Shalom-Salam, Werner p.s. Remember: ?Nobody expects the Free Software Police.? -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 10 11:07:58 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:07:58 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: Let me start off by saying security is almost never absolute. I think it approaches some really basic economics: how much do you think your opponent is willing to spend to compromise your security? How much are you willing to spend to protect it? So there is no silver bullet. It depends on your threat model. On 10/10/17 03:57, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > The point of using the > old photoreceptor was that way we were dead certain there was no > exploitable integrated circuit in the photoreceptor... I don't really see the point of purposely reducing the bitrate of a serial link. The online system on one end of the link is potentially hostile. It can still be hostile through a completely bona fide serial link. It would be indistinghuihable from a hostile integrated circuit on the online system side of the link. I don't consider it likely that the offline computer would just start interpreting stuff sent over a serial port; there would be no software running trying to make something of the data and accidentally expose an arbitrary code execution through a flaw. Instead, there would just be a data transfer utility, let's say zmodem, which would be simple enough to audit and write in an extremely defensive manner. If you need to get data out of the offline system, you still need a wire back. If not, you can cut it. If I were making custom hardware, I'd do something like this: An ARM microcontroller with USB-device port. Connected to, ah, let's say two 20 MHz SPI links. Connected to a second identical ARM microcontroller with USB-device port. It would just offer a basic USB-to-serial interface to the connected PC. But instead of an actual regular serial interface, it would transfer all data bytes over the SPI links. The firmware of the microcontroller would be so straight-forward that you can clearly see that it will never do anything other with data on the SPI bus than relay it to the USB side. Pick a high-performance microcontroller, and you could get a 40 Mbit/s serial line. If the microcontroller connected to the online system were compromised, it could still not do anything more than send plain data bytes to the other, trusted, offline side. It can't do more than a compromised online computer could already achieve. > Yep, they are. Seen them myself in the malware lab. No further comment > available, as I'm bound by NDA-of-doom. Thanks a lot for sharing what you are allowed to divulge! I really think it's great you chose to do that. Thanks. > If you think about it for a while I'm > pretty sure you'll figure out how, but I unfortunately cannot connect > the dots for you. I wrote a quick short e-mail with food for thought, there is so much detail I left out. The first thing I can think of relates directly to left out detail. If there is a bug in a filesystem driver you have enabled, it's possible that a manipulated filesystem could trigger arbitrary code execution, with kernel privileges. This would be possible with any piece of hardware that the kernel can treat as a block device, not just SD cards. So you would need to configure your system in such a way that it never *tries* to scan any new block devices you connect to the system after it has booted[1]. This is where I don't think that you can ever be sure what Windows all does when removable storage is connected. Yet with a basic Linux or BSD system, it's much better possible to locate functionality that tries to scan removable storage. So you disable all removable storage scanning and just use an incremental tar archive directly on the block device to transfer your debian-security mirror and your encrypted/signed files. Again there is an attack surface, the tar program, but it is greatly reduced. The thing with evil USB is that there are so many device drivers with so many different functions, and any one of them can become active and start communicating with your compromised USB device. With an SD card, at least you can reduce it to something like the driver for SD storage (probably a good idea to remove SDIO drivers), the block layer, the partition table parsers (don't think you'll be able to lose those), and some more stuff. Interestingly, with (U)EFI, it's also possible there is still some firmware actually active during operation. Note that it's not enough to just actually *use* a plain tar archive directly on a block device. You need to make sure that your offline system will never *try* to interpret it differently. It's not how you use it, it's how it *can* be used. I see people sometimes forgetting this important distinction. Even if /you/ don't place a plain, unencrypted filesystem on the block device, your attacker could still do that anyway. > Yep! Been done. SATA firmware has been exploited via the JTAG > interface, new firmware loaded onto it, and been used as a vector. In fact, a good friend of mine did this and did a fantastic talk about it at the OHM2013 hackers camp: He went a step further than JTAG. I'm not overly worried about JTAG-based attacks, since it requires physical access to the hard disk. If your attacker has physical access to your supposedly secure equipment, you've lost in a major way. It's over. Instead, you need the in-band firmware update ability that allows you to reflash the firmware from the PC the disk is connected to, and that is precisely what he achieved. He wrote a proof-of-concept exploit. It is not clear to me whether you are saying you have seen an actual evil exploit or not when you say "been used as a vector". Because that could also refer to a proof of concept. But this proof of concept he wrote would not actually compromise the offline computer if the offline computer just used the block device as a tar archive like I proposed for the SD card scenario above. It was written for an entirely different scenario that doesn't apply in this case. What you need in this case is something that somehow uses the SATA connection to feed the system unexpected data somewhere that gets misinterpreted and leads to compromise. I haven't heard about SATA being used in this way. Note that if the system /were/ to interpret the hard disk as a filesystem, I do expect compromise is easily possible. The kernel will expect data on the hard disk to be unchanged unless it changes it itself, so there are probably time-of-check-to-time-of-use issues for instance. Well, I'm leaving it at this. Cheers, Peter. [1] Booting with the potentially compromised SD card connected would be a bad idea for sure, since you expose it to the firmware of the computer. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pete at heypete.com Tue Oct 10 09:26:54 2017 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:26:54 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 06:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: > I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use > trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB > device. If you must use USB devices for some reason, take a look at the flash drive. It's designed specifically to protect against "badUSB", where the controller and firmware can be compromised. The controller has the developer's public key baked in during manufacture. The firmware is signed and can only be loaded once (no provision is made for in-the-field firmware updates). The controller verifies the firmware and its signature at every power-on. If a malicious actor had physical access and re-flashed the firmware, the controller would notice and fail to load. It also has a physical write-protect switch that can prevent unwanted writes. It's a plain flash drive and doesn't have built-in encryption (though the company sells those too) but it should have a higher assurance of not being compromised or compromisable at the hardware level than a typical off-the-shelf USB device. I use it with my offline Raspberry Pi 2 that I use for private key operations for my primary keys (as opposed to subkeys, which are on smartcards). The Pi 2 uses LUKS for encrypting the microSD card it uses for storage and is never connected to the network. It's more than adequate in terms of performance and is cheap enough that I have a bunch lying around the house anyway. ;) Cheers! -Pete -- Pete Stephenson From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 10 11:22:54 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:22:54 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <20171009211351.6b146b32@iria.my-fqdn.de> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> <20171009211351.6b146b32@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <0e4015d1-06fe-a171-e01c-8f24bd206f94@digitalbrains.com> On 09/10/17 21:14, Stefan Claas wrote: > So i thought maybe i buy one, let's say with Windows 10, never update > or upgrade it due to it's permanent offline state Whether I would consider this sane or not depends a lot on the type of data you'll be handling on the offline machine. If it's just checking signatures on plain text, it sounds somewhat reasonable though I would never consider Windows 10 for it. You don't know all the ways in which it is trying to be user-friendly by interpreting data. So for all I know even a short file stored as .txt might be checked to see if perhaps it can be interpreted as an icon to show in the file manager. Add a buffer overflow in the icon image parser, and you have an attack vector. At least with free software, you can inspect the way it works, and probably isolate all the services that are trying too hard to be helpful. If, on the other hand, you are using rich file formats like images or marked up documents, it sounds like a really bad idea to not patch security vulnerabilities. Same for Certificate Requests you are going to sign with an X.509 Certificate Authority on the offline system. A much too rich format (ASN.1!) to not update security issues, but it would be a very common use case for an offline system. It would be really helpful if all you needed to transfer to the offline system were secure data rather than software updates. But if that secure data is anything more than trivial, I think you really do need updates, unfortunately. HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 10 11:45:12 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 11:45:12 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <054a9d9a-a25b-ba73-2866-bc624ed6da76@digitalbrains.com> On 10/10/17 04:06, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > I'm not inclined to make this change. That to me means I would support leaving it as is. I don't feel strongly on writing it one way or another, but I do dislike the pressure some people exert on others pushing their view. If however you are consistently writing "Microsoft Windows?" everywhere in the FAQ, I'd find it natural to write "GNU/Linux" as well. I think you should pick your fights. That means I think people shouldn't be pushing others to include GNU/. It also means I would soon capitulate and just give them their way, changing it to GNU/Linux. It's just not worth it. Luckily, I've yet to see people pushing to drop the GNU/ :-). > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. I'm chiming in to say I don't have strong feelings :-D. Cheers, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From skquinn at rushpost.com Tue Oct 10 11:57:14 2017 From: skquinn at rushpost.com (Shawn K. Quinn) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 04:57:14 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/2017 01:46 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> However, if the GnuPG FAQ is talking about an operating system built >> from the Linux kernel and the GNU userland (coreutils, libc, etc), then >> "GNU/Linux" is not only the respectful term to use, it's the more >> accurate and precise term. > > I disagree. It's a more political term. There is nothing political about giving proper credit to the GNU Project for the operating system (the software which Linux, the kernel, boots into in order to provide a useful system). > With respect to specific distros, we ought use the name the distro > prefers. The Fedora Project releases Fedora, not Fedora GNU/Linux. The > Debian guys release Debian GNU/Linux, not Debian Linux. The people who > set up these distros have given their distros names, and it seems > appropriate to use the names properly. It is as inappropriate to refer > to Debian Linux as it is to refer to Fedora GNU/Linux: in both cases > that's rejecting the community's right to name their distro what they wish. I will happily refer to, for example, Ubuntu GNU/Linux since there is clearly a GNU userland surrounding Linux, the kernel. I feel wrong doing otherwise. > When speaking generically about operating systems using the Linux > kernel, there it seems GNU is also inappropriate. GNU is not an > inseparable part of Linux; we should not promulgate the myth they are. I agree that it is possible to use other userlands (BSD derivatives, or whatever Android is) with Linux, the kernel. However, the vast majority of so-called "Linux distributions" in fact rely on GNU software (most notably GNU coreutils and GNU libc) to function. > In the FAQ, wherever "Linux" is used as a generic descriptor it is in a > context where the presence of GNU utilities is irrelevant. Example: > "there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on Linux systems." s/on Linux systems/on systems which boot using Linux, the kernel/ -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ankostis at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 10:40:38 2017 From: ankostis at gmail.com (ankostis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:40:38 +0200 Subject: PGP for official documents / eIDAS and ZertES In-Reply-To: <20170602203732.wao6rniog5zp6by7@adversary.org> References: <065c726e-7922-0352-938a-bf2aa274d390@pocock.pro> <7a6ff952-835b-9a30-5176-1e06cebb4783@pocock.pro> <1db3339f-7b71-8279-3330-b45c99b7f65c@posteo.de> <98C1E414-7CE6-4EFC-BF70-B9106D0F182A@hoerbe.at> <87r2z218mw.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170602203732.wao6rniog5zp6by7@adversary.org> Message-ID: But it doesn't have to be XML! Besides ETSI, the european organization implementing eIDAS has 3 "standards" (e.g. [1]): XADES(XML), PADES (pdf), CADES - the last one doubting if it has any modern use. Why not push them for a new PGPADES standard? Best, Kostis [1] https://blogs.adobe.com/security/91014620_eusig_wp_ue.pdf On 2 June 2017 at 22:37, Ben McGinnes wrote: > On Fri, Jun 02, 2017 at 09:39:51PM +0200, Werner Koch wrote: >> On Wed, 31 May 2017 19:34, ankostis at gmail.com said: >> >> | >>I have some questions related to XML-Dsig: >> | > >> | >Argghh!! Run away! >> | >> | A near-universal reaction. >> >> XML crypto can be summarized as >> we-repeat-all-bugs-the-other-two-protocols-meanwhile-fixed-and-add-extra-complexity-for-even-more-fun >> See also > > I like XML, it's very good at what it was originally intended for. I > like crypto, and specifically OpenPGP, too and for much the same > reasons ... > > I am *not*, however, crazy enough to to even consider attempting this. > That way lies only madness and ruin. Or, to put it another way, I > listened to Peter the first time around. ;) > >> ps. I already have my share of grey hair from implementing X.509/CMS. >> There is not enough left for an XML crypto endeavor. > > Mine's not expendable either and I didn't need to go anywhere near > X.509 to know that. > > The closest anyone should get to that sort of thing is "I have foo.xml > and I've signed it, I now also have foo.xml.sig" and that's it. > > > Regards, > Ben > > P.S. You heard me say "no" right? Just checking ... From ankostis at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 10:44:07 2017 From: ankostis at gmail.com (ankostis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:44:07 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 10 October 2017 at 08:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > ... > In the FAQ, wherever "Linux" is used as a generic descriptor it is in a > context where the presence of GNU utilities is irrelevant. Example: > "there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on Linux systems." > The truth/validity of that statement is in no way dependent on whether > one's talking about a system that uses the GNU userland or the BSD userland. Is there Linux with BSD userland? From 400thecat at gmx.ch Tue Oct 10 10:51:16 2017 From: 400thecat at gmx.ch (Fourhundred Thecat) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:51:16 +0200 Subject: gnupg on read-only filesystem Message-ID: <59DC8A04.2020505@gmx.ch> Hello, I am using gnupg 2.1.18-6 on Debian Stretch. My root partition (/) is mounted read-only and I cannot use gpg as root, because gpg wants to start gpg-agent and write to /root/.gnupg/ ie: gpg -d file.gpg gpg: error creating keybox '/root/.gnupg/pubring.kbx': Read-only file system gpg: keyblock resource '/root/.gnupg/pubring.kbx': Read-only file system gpg: can't connect to the agent: IPC connect call failed gpg: problem with the agent: No agent running gpg: decryption failed: No secret key With gpg version 1, I could use --lock-never and --no-use-agent and it worked on read-only filesystem. How can I use gpg version 2 on read-only filesystem and without agent ? thanks, From monalisha12547 at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 21:15:05 2017 From: monalisha12547 at gmail.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 15:15:05 -0400 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID:

heyyy so ive been trying to make this work for a couple days was ready to give up on here but here we are... and let me know when free  listo? Id still be down for doing something so hit me back and let me know your intentions? haha want my pics now?

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From monalisha12547 at gmail.com Mon Oct 9 22:11:12 2017 From: monalisha12547 at gmail.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 16:11:12 -0400 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <8f274035ae784c80949367a5102ba637@gmail.com>

Baby, are you busy or not interested on me anymore? I am still waiting to talk to you listo. You can get access to my number and address from:  MY LIVE CAM

Its private and safe. so plz dont share ok. You can get verified in a min without any costs. This not charging you anything as i did sent you invitaion. They will just check your age if you are over 18 and will give you access to my profile.

Waiting.......... Do it and meet me now..............

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic/21.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18009 bytes Desc: not available URL: From monalisha12547 at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 01:17:06 2017 From: monalisha12547 at gmail.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 19:17:06 -0400 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <0313e3b77d9df9405a7ce36d0c824689@gmail.com>

Are you avoiding me? or you didnt get my mail? I am still waiting to talk to you listo. You can get access to my prvt room now from My Personal Page It's secret, so plzdont share it with anyone ok. Make an account on here and lets talk. This not chrging you anything as i did sent you invataion. They will just check your age if you are over 18 and will give you access to my profile. baby i am Waiting.......

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic/1.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 221969 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic/21.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18009 bytes Desc: not available URL: From monalisha12547 at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 05:17:16 2017 From: monalisha12547 at gmail.com (Anna) Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2017 23:17:16 -0400 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <71b80a2ed064dc6fcb6a922ff59fb800@gmail.com>

listo Are you confused about the screening??? Listen its safe for both of us. After passing i can assure you not a minor or a criminal. This is really important for me, hope you understand why. My number is listed of there and you can call me right now after passing it. Am really so weet now, cant wait to take your gun inside. If you feel interest about me than get verified and call me or pick me right now. My number is listed here : COLLECT MY NUMBER

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic/99.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 23623 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nils at familievogels.nl Tue Oct 10 08:46:19 2017 From: nils at familievogels.nl (Nils Vogels) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:46:19 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? Message-ID: <757ed864-cc28-4099-8670-41477d4f32ea@email.android.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From monalisha12547 at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 09:16:06 2017 From: monalisha12547 at gmail.com (Anna) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 03:16:06 -0400 Subject: Safe transfer via USB devices In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID:

I am feeling distress about all issues. Im still wanna wating for some gun. Lets do cam at this moment without using a card. Its simple and no cost to Join.Just create a free account here No Need Card only need your email address. so please don’t make excuses. Lets get this going im ready anytime to meet you. Search with Anna77 my username after u done email verification. Am so wet...

-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pic/51.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 27663 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefan.claas at posteo.de Tue Oct 10 13:59:26 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:59:26 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> Message-ID: Am 10.10.2017 um 04:51 schrieb Duane Whitty: > I find this topic quite interesting so if I may comment a little more... > > Firstly, I think it's really easy to get carried away here with > security measures one probably doesn't really need. If you do have a > need for air-gapped computers then you also have a need for a lot of > other security measures. > > 1) How good are the locks on the doors to your house? > 2) What about your windows? > 3) What about fire protection? > 4) What about data backups? > 5) Do you have a policy and mechanism in place for how long you keep dat > a? > 6) How about backup security, both on-site and off-site? > 7) What mechanism will you use for media destruction when your policy > indicates you don't need certain data any longer? > 8) How are you protecting your public/private keys? > 9)... > > I could continue to go on but maybe I'm getting carried away here. > The point I'm trying to make is that if there are lots of attack > vectors and just focusing on where you encrypt/decrypt messages > doesn't necessarily make you that much more protected. > > Just my opinion and it's not meant as criticism just as "food for though > t" > > Thanks for your reply and the points you have outlined! I do find this topic interesting as well, hence why i started it. :-) My thread model is not as high as of other peoples,? i assume. I came up with this idea while reading about black/red boxes computers, which act as online/offline computers. And i recently discovered Neal Walfield's "An Avanced Introduction to GnuPG". At page 42 of his .pdf he speaks of offline computers as well. https://begriffs.com/pdf/an-advanced-introduction-to-gnupg.pdf Even if i'm maybe now on the radar of some folks and i could have no chance to properly secure my PGP communications in the future, at least this discussion may help the interested reader how to use GnuPG in the future, in a more secured way. Best regards Stefan From stefan.claas at posteo.de Tue Oct 10 14:01:15 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:01:15 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: Am 10.10.2017 um 09:26 schrieb Pete Stephenson: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 06:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: >> I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use >> trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB >> device. > If you must use USB devices for some reason, take a look at the > > flash drive. > Thanks a lot for the information, much appreciated! Best regards Stefan From stefan.claas at posteo.de Tue Oct 10 14:12:21 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:12:21 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> Message-ID: <3ceb866f-67db-8b46-fbcb-264cbf68efbe@posteo.de> Am 10.10.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > I came up with this idea while reading about black/red boxes computers, > which act as online/offline computers. And i recently discovered Neal > Walfield's "An Avanced Introduction to GnuPG". At page 42 of his .pdf > he speaks of offline computers as well. > > https://begriffs.com/pdf/an-advanced-introduction-to-gnupg.pdf > > Appologies, here is the complete page link: https://begriffs.com/posts/2016-11-05-advanced-intro-gnupg.html Regards Stefan From stefan.claas at posteo.de Tue Oct 10 14:16:23 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:16:23 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <0e4015d1-06fe-a171-e01c-8f24bd206f94@digitalbrains.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> <20171009211351.6b146b32@iria.my-fqdn.de> <0e4015d1-06fe-a171-e01c-8f24bd206f94@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: Am 10.10.2017 um 11:22 schrieb Peter Lebbing: > On 09/10/17 21:14, Stefan Claas wrote: >> So i thought maybe i buy one, let's say with Windows 10, never update >> or upgrade it due to it's permanent offline state > Whether I would consider this sane or not depends a lot on the type of > data you'll be handling on the offline machine. If it's just checking > signatures on plain text, it sounds somewhat reasonable though I would > never consider Windows 10 for it. You don't know all the ways in which > it is trying to be user-friendly by interpreting data. So for all I know > even a short file stored as .txt might be checked to see if perhaps it > can be interpreted as an icon to show in the file manager. Add a buffer > overflow in the icon image parser, and you have an attack vector. At > least with free software, you can inspect the way it works, and probably > isolate all the services that are trying too hard to be helpful. > > If, on the other hand, you are using rich file formats like images or > marked up documents, it sounds like a really bad idea to not patch > security vulnerabilities. > > Same for Certificate Requests you are going to sign with an X.509 > Certificate Authority on the offline system. A much too rich format > (ASN.1!) to not update security issues, but it would be a very common > use case for an offline system. > > It would be really helpful if all you needed to transfer to the offline > system were secure data rather than software updates. But if that secure > data is anything more than trivial, I think you really do need updates, > unfortunately. > > Thanks for your detailed explanation! The only purpose i will use this offline Netbook for is to encrypt/decrypt and sign/verify messages. Nothing more. O.k. and write messages in notepad. Regards Stefan From guru at unixarea.de Tue Oct 10 14:38:06 2017 From: guru at unixarea.de (Matthias Apitz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:38:06 +0200 Subject: Is there some writeable memory on the OpenPGP-card Message-ID: <20171010123806.GA93657@c720-r314251> Hello, I often switch at work with my OpenPGP-card among the workstations I'm using. Some of them do not have (for security reasons) any network connection between and it would be nice transfer some small files together with the USB OpenPGP-card. Is there some memory for read/write on them, maybe with some commands of the card daemon? Thanks matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ? guru at unixarea.de, ? http://www.unixarea.de/ ? +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub 8. Mai 1945: Wer nicht feiert hat den Krieg verloren. 8 de mayo de 1945: Quien no festeja perdi? la Guerra. May 8, 1945: Who does not celebrate lost the War. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From stefan.claas at posteo.de Tue Oct 10 14:41:30 2017 From: stefan.claas at posteo.de (Stefan Claas) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:41:30 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1f22830e-54b2-bb0d-ab74-b417b82907c3@nofroth.com> Message-ID: <0f61acf5-6c36-9eef-d231-2aae84b1258e@posteo.de> Am 10.10.2017 um 13:59 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > My thread model is not as high as of other peoples,? i assume. > threat model of course... Regards Stefan From dgouttegattat at incenp.org Tue Oct 10 15:27:11 2017 From: dgouttegattat at incenp.org (Damien Goutte-Gattat) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:27:11 +0100 Subject: Is there some writeable memory on the OpenPGP-card In-Reply-To: <20171010123806.GA93657@c720-r314251> References: <20171010123806.GA93657@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <3ed20f4b-9c08-85a7-fa5b-5481760917e7@incenp.org> On 10/10/2017 01:38 PM, Matthias Apitz wrote: > it would be nice transfer some small files together with the > USB OpenPGP-card. Is there some memory for read/write on them, maybe > with some commands of the card daemon? The OpenPGP Card specification defines "Private Use Data Objects" that you may use to store arbitrary data. You can write to those DO using the "privatedo" command of the GnuPG's card editor. For example, to send the contents of the test1.txt file to the private DO #1: $ gpg --card-edit gpg/card> privatedo 1 < test1.txt Caveats to be aware of: * In versions 2.0 and 2.1 of the OpenPGP Card specification, private DOs are limited in size to 254 bytes each. (In version 3, there is no upper limit fixed in the specification.) * Private DOs are optional and not all implementations support them. (Yubico's Yubikey NEO does not, for example). Damien -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Tue Oct 10 14:13:45 2017 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:13:45 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi Robert, > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". I thought this zealotry had fizzled out about 2013. :-) > However, in order to make sure that the FAQ reflects the community's > wishes, I'm submitting the proposal here for community feedback. Those preferring GNU/Linux are more likely to reply. > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. Do not change to using GNU/Linux. It's a purely political term; there is no case for technical accuracy. Alongside GNU programs I have Clang, musl C library, X Windows, KDE, Firefox, LibreOffice and many other non-GNU project, non-GNU licensed, parts. Singling out GNU for credit is unfair to those. "Linux" can be the kernel or a distro. Context makes this clear in the majority of cases. Appending `kernel' or `distribution' in the odd remaining case is sufficient. GNU/Linux is more awkward to read, and to verbalise in the mind. Using RMS's declaration of correction pronunciation, "GNU slash Linux" or "GNU plus Linux", makes this worse. (He argues, correctly, saying "GNU Linux" is wrong because it suggests Linux is a GNU project.) The term GNU/Linux is dying a natural death. Do not resuscitate. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy From cderr at simons-rock.edu Tue Oct 10 14:24:33 2017 From: cderr at simons-rock.edu (charlie derr) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 08:24:33 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <12245_1507608862_59DC491B_12245_983_1_20171010032033.ayzlyzhts5xrc7yw@x60s.casa> References: <12245_1507608862_59DC491B_12245_983_1_20171010032033.ayzlyzhts5xrc7yw@x60s.casa> Message-ID: On 10/09/2017 11:20 PM, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Hello Robert, > > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 10:06:17PM -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be >> replaced with "GNU/Linux". > A request has been made by whom? > >> I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make sure >> that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting the >> proposal here for community feedback. >> >> If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. > I would say it is a fair change. +1 > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From mtg at gnu.org Tue Oct 10 15:13:11 2017 From: mtg at gnu.org (Mike Gerwitz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:13:11 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Mon, 9 Oct 2017 22:06:17 -0400") References: Message-ID: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is used to describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should be used. Please see: https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-and-Linux -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 https://mikegerwitz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 15:48:29 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 09:48:29 -0400 Subject: gnupg on read-only filesystem In-Reply-To: <59DC8A04.2020505@gmx.ch> References: <59DC8A04.2020505@gmx.ch> Message-ID: <87bmlfjeqa.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Tue 2017-10-10 10:51:16 +0200, Fourhundred Thecat wrote: > I am using gnupg 2.1.18-6 on Debian Stretch. Stretch currently ships 2.1.18-8~deb9u1. please update ;) > My root partition (/) is mounted read-only and I cannot use gpg as root, > because gpg wants to start gpg-agent and write to /root/.gnupg/ > > ie: > > gpg -d file.gpg > > gpg: error creating keybox '/root/.gnupg/pubring.kbx': Read-only file system > gpg: keyblock resource '/root/.gnupg/pubring.kbx': Read-only file system > gpg: can't connect to the agent: IPC connect call failed > gpg: problem with the agent: No agent running > gpg: decryption failed: No secret key > > With gpg version 1, I could use --lock-never and --no-use-agent and it > worked on read-only filesystem. > > How can I use gpg version 2 on read-only filesystem and without agent ? it looks like you're trying to decrypt a file. it also looks like you don't have any public keys stored on this machine. so maybe you're trying to decrypt a symmetrically-encrypted (password-protected) file? I'm assuming that you have a writeable filesystem somehwere (e.g. /tmp). You could try the following: export GNUPGHOME=$(mktemp -d) gpg -d file.gpg rm -rf "$GNUPGHOME" hth, --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ankostis at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 16:51:27 2017 From: ankostis at gmail.com (ankostis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:51:27 +0000 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: +1 The are very few references of "Linux" in the FAQ btw. On Tue 10 Oct 2017, 16:42 Mike Gerwitz, wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > > replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is used to > describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should be used. > > Please see: > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-and-Linux > > -- > Mike Gerwitz > Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer > GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 > https://mikegerwitz.com > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > -- thumbs on glass -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewg at andrewg.com Tue Oct 10 17:06:37 2017 From: andrewg at andrewg.com (Andrew Gallagher) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 16:06:37 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <4da5c550-1384-5c0e-df4c-6e00d313f728@andrewg.com> On 10/10/17 13:13, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > > Those preferring GNU/Linux are more likely to reply. This is a universal problem that is not understood well enough. If you want to know what people actually think, you have to a) actively survey them, and b) control for biases in the responses. This is a nontrivial process. Anything else tells you at best what memes are trendy[1], and at worst what factions are committed to entryism[2]. ;-) [1] #boatymcboatface [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html -- Andrew Gallagher -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 862 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 17:37:15 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:37:15 -0300 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-10 10:13 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ >> be replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is > used to describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should > be used. > > Please see: > > https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-and-Linux > I respect your point-of-view and your right to express it. I would like to point out though that this link, from gnu.org, would be expected (at least by me) to promote a GNU centric and rightfully self-promoting view of how to proceed. > > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing > list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > I believe FAQ should be left as is. Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3OknAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkUIkIAJ4hMgWM7E9LMgM11up9fUBf pvJ2AqLy3hwhrZkifNA543D4VoENj9FpmaajzOkjqDYeLYMT63nlA+Xv5z8/WhKT hwqs5W0kUo4O8fhuy4dDcM9yJh1P9oSBuxMhtdv5MAupI5lRAPSmP9o71rhKTHeX RC4vPColGcqrnb+D/4M2mPxoEADHxn6Tj5UZuRSqMkbm9yaBwFTrLOPQGLKLYo/j ObRuuRzA56jojBfm8YmfB3JtQ1Aw0vi3fR89UMXq7Mk4ucChNEUIypUm+ld2OQ+c juPtpMsouPzSys8FMk5237wHV0ZP4SbCJG3X0Wrr49lLB1jwTIL4E75AUwpHXug= =Blzt -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From whitey at posteo.net Tue Oct 10 17:39:00 2017 From: whitey at posteo.net (Whitey) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 15:39:00 +0000 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <3724cb07-b33f-b459-64d7-c9e0841a7918@posteo.net> Pete Stephenson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 06:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: >> I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use >> trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB >> device. > > If you must use USB devices for some reason, take a look at the > > flash drive. > > It's designed specifically to protect against "badUSB", where the > controller and firmware can be compromised. The controller has the > developer's public key baked in during manufacture. The firmware is > signed and can only be loaded once (no provision is made for > in-the-field firmware updates). The controller verifies the firmware and > its signature at every power-on. If a malicious actor had physical > access and re-flashed the firmware, the controller would notice and fail > to load. > > It also has a physical write-protect switch that can prevent unwanted > writes. Since a flash drive is a read/write device, when would writes be unwanted? When should I use this? -- Whitey From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 17:46:59 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:46:59 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <054a9d9a-a25b-ba73-2866-bc624ed6da76@digitalbrains.com> References: <054a9d9a-a25b-ba73-2866-bc624ed6da76@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <0b756a63-dcc2-db20-7af5-a45a1d3ea9ec@yandex.com> On 10/10/17 04:45, Peter Lebbing wrote: > That to me means I would support leaving it as is. I don't feel strongly > on writing it one way or another, but I do dislike the pressure some > people exert on others pushing their view. If however you are > consistently writing "Microsoft Windows?" everywhere in the FAQ, I'd > find it natural to write "GNU/Linux" as well. This is a fallacy. Windows *is* Microsoft Windows, the only thing called ?Windows? (as a proper noun) in informatics. Not so with ?GNU/Linux?. GNU/Linux is not Linux. Linux is a kernel. GNU/Linux is the combination of this kernel with software from the GNU project. The word ?operating system? is too vague to have a reasonable discussion of exactly what set of programs are part of an operating system. In any case, it is clear that Linux is a kernel, not an operating system[1]. Also, the argument that GNU PG can be used on Linux without GNU is invalid, for it can also be used without Linux. Several BSD variants include GNU PG. [1] I challenge anybody who replies with ?operating system?=?kernel? to explain how this viewpoint is compatible with the practice of calling FreeBSD, Windows, OS X (as a whole) and so on an ?operating system? and not a ?kernel?. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 17:49:44 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:49:44 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: On 10/10/17 07:13, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Do not change to using GNU/Linux. It's a purely political term; there > is no case for technical accuracy. Alongside GNU programs I have Clang, > musl C library, X Windows, KDE, Firefox, LibreOffice and many other > non-GNU project, non-GNU licensed, parts. Singling out GNU for credit > is unfair to those. Your argument is self-defeating. There is no reason to single Linux. It is just another of thousands of programs without which a computer would be useless exactly as the others you mentioned. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 17:54:36 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:54:36 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/17 01:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > With respect to specific distros, we ought use the name the distro > prefers. The Fedora Project releases Fedora, not Fedora GNU/Linux. The > Debian guys release Debian GNU/Linux, not Debian Linux. The people who > set up these distros have given their distros names, and it seems > appropriate to use the names properly. It is as inappropriate to refer > to Debian Linux as it is to refer to Fedora GNU/Linux: in both cases > that's rejecting the community's right to name their distro what they wish. To me it appears hypocritical that you are speaking of ?respecting community rights? where the aforesaid communities (more precisely, the founding developers who are the ones that actually choose the name of the distribution, not the later community) have stepped over the right of recognition of the GNU projects. The most important contribution of the GNU project is not the software packages, but starting the free software movement. GNU/Linux distributions are only possible because of free software. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 17:55:42 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 10:55:42 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/17 01:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > With respect to specific distros, we ought use the name the distro > prefers. The Fedora Project releases Fedora, not Fedora GNU/Linux. The > Debian guys release Debian GNU/Linux, not Debian Linux. The people who > set up these distros have given their distros names, and it seems > appropriate to use the names properly. It is as inappropriate to refer > to Debian Linux as it is to refer to Fedora GNU/Linux: in both cases > that's rejecting the community's right to name their distro what they wish. To me it appears hypocritical that you are speaking of ?respecting community rights? where the aforesaid communities (more precisely, the founding developers who are the ones that actually choose the name of the distribution, not the later community) have stepped over the right of the GNU project to be given proper credit. Recall that the most important contribution of the GNU project is not the software packages, but starting the free software movement and developing the most important licenses. GNU/Linux distributions are only possible because of free software ideology, even though many such would hate to acknowledge this. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Tue Oct 10 18:02:55 2017 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:02:55 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <0b756a63-dcc2-db20-7af5-a45a1d3ea9ec@yandex.com> References: <054a9d9a-a25b-ba73-2866-bc624ed6da76@digitalbrains.com> <0b756a63-dcc2-db20-7af5-a45a1d3ea9ec@yandex.com> Message-ID: <20171010160255.26D0D20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi Mario, > the argument that GNU PG can be used on Linux Please note, it's "GnuPG". That's the project name. If you wish to acknowledge that it's a GNU project then it's GNU GnuPG. :-) -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Tue Oct 10 18:04:59 2017 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:04:59 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi Mario, > Your argument is self-defeating. There is no reason to single Linux. > It is just another of thousands of programs without which a computer > would be useless exactly as the others you mentioned. You snipped the bit where I said "Linux" has two meanings in the English language depending on context. Given your admirable, though misplaced, zeal, I doubt there's a considered argument to be had here. -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy From leo at gaspard.io Tue Oct 10 18:03:52 2017 From: leo at gaspard.io (Leo Gaspard) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:03:52 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/2017 03:13 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be >> replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is used to > describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should be used. The occurences of ?Linux? in the FAQ are in the following sentences, according to a `git grep` in the FAQ directory: > Except for a slight wording change, this DCO is identical to the one used by the Linux kernel. This sentence clearly deserves a Linux and not GNU/Linux... regardless of whether GnuPG is part of the ?GNU operating system? (sorry for the quotes, it's the first time I hear this phrase) or not. > - Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Clearly Linux and not GNU/Linux once again. > (all Linux distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool) Do we really want to exclude distros based on the Linux kernel but not on the GNU base utilities, but rather on eg. sbase [1]? I'd say there is no compelling reason to, so no reason to switch to GNU/Linux here. > *** ? for Linux? > > The bad news is there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on > Linux systems. The good news is that it?s usually installed by > default, so nothing needs to be downloaded! The same argument leads me to think there is no reason to switch to GNU/Linux here again; distros without the GNU userspace don't have an easier way to install than distros with the GNU userspace as far as I know. > **** ? for Debian GNU/Linux or Ubuntu? It's already GNU/Linux. > ** ? Linux or FreeBSD? > > [Follows a list of email clients compatible with non-{Windows,Mac} > operating systems] Do Thunderbird, Gnus, Mutt, Kontact, Evolution or Claws-Mail not work on computers which would have swapped the GNU userland with eg. sbase? If so, maybe it'd be good to add a note stating that it doesn't work without GNU tools, but I don't see any reason to exclude non-GNU-userspace-based Linux distribution from the list, especially given how FreeBSD is included in there too. Thus, I'm not in favor of any change to the current FAQ, to replace a Linux by a GNU/Linux. Cheers, Leo [1] https://core.suckless.org/sbase -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From leo at gaspard.io Tue Oct 10 18:05:15 2017 From: leo at gaspard.io (Leo Gaspard) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:05:15 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/2017 05:55 PM, Mario Castel?n Castro wrote: > On 10/10/17 01:46, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> With respect to specific distros, we ought use the name the distro >> prefers. The Fedora Project releases Fedora, not Fedora GNU/Linux. The >> Debian guys release Debian GNU/Linux, not Debian Linux. The people who >> set up these distros have given their distros names, and it seems >> appropriate to use the names properly. It is as inappropriate to refer >> to Debian Linux as it is to refer to Fedora GNU/Linux: in both cases >> that's rejecting the community's right to name their distro what they wish. > > To me it appears hypocritical that you are speaking of ?respecting > community rights? where the aforesaid communities (more precisely, the > founding developers who are the ones that actually choose the name of > the distribution, not the later community) have stepped over the right > of the GNU project to be given proper credit. > > Recall that the most important contribution of the GNU project is not > the software packages, but starting the free software movement and > developing the most important licenses. GNU/Linux distributions are only > possible because of free software ideology, even though many such would > hate to acknowledge this. So we should call FreeBSD ?GNU/FreeBSD? instead? Sorry, I could not resist. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 18:15:20 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:15:20 -0300 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <82846638-b37f-b49d-5d73-9900026d34e4@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-09 11:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ > be replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make > sure that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting > the proposal here for community feedback. > > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing > list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > I just did a search for the term "Linux" in the FAQ. I did this so that the conversation would be about a concrete instance and not based so much on abstract concepts. The search returned four instances of the word "Linux". First match was a trademark attribution of the term "Linux" to Linus Torvalds. The second match was in a sub-header for section 3.6 "From where can I download it?" "? for Linux?" with text as follows (containing 3rd match) : "The bad news is there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on Linux systems. The good news is that it?s usually installed by default, so nothing needs to be downloaded!" In this context does Linux mean any system running the Linux kernel or does it mean something else? The fourth match is "? for Debian GNU/Linux or Ubuntu?" also a part of the section "From where can I download it?" Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3PIVAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtk0ssH/iL7zbDmN8vZ1SoqaCjqvY0E SZxOJvnngqFTb67R40v4W8VcFe0J/aRghXLDrhRzrfuBFdAirP3iwCSItZrqUiF0 U0t7WHhUaMywI/x4HfrIUDPqJOEYJRJvNXssj9UOoG3sR86FSEIZAj7Oe5GIEYaH FAmt1dG0GOlq1f/eQYsaekVWHT4aLyJI8HkqjCEihxUoSMjyFg0WxQBYN1kGSnUt 3JOzewW3tucUpRnnT1N6BXrnjk395fiOoLo8aNQaBoq8wiKETmgUnhcwRyWmuomb hAyrBh1Kk7vj5a/7iDPwt18gsiK2kT23nvTDxfhX+vSG18onYXhbj2vMAaVY0cc= =kWvQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 18:28:57 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:28:57 -0300 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <458c85bf-6900-0a1c-8b53-fce808aeeb53@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-09 11:06 PM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ > be replaced with "GNU/Linux". > > I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make > sure that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting > the proposal here for community feedback. > > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing > list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > Rob, thanks for taking time out of your day and busy schedule for dealing with this issue. Too bad it is such a contentious issue for so many people. Thank you for your fairness and collaborative and community minded approach. Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3PVEAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkLRQH/RDMBbl6PZ/lkXe/qYH4S2v8 QXd0qWeiniyAsfRju8bbbj3o4VF4J5P5AWcHGxbV6/uXmEZUevf3ts5Xq1e+Ow/K 5GDClHuoCa08+o8yIFDXLQ0ac/AiKg8kBl+3gp6B5v+Neln8q2zj6JBau8+0QhfQ 09NkYugoXra0kI5ISvEzW8J9KFvLi8+nA/KY78h9tASD4IN1zYgq2DtLkS/f9eNy vQ+UR0y31ZtZ0LJ+ceqf656pAk5cUp4bN4aRcTOm0ZiN9ZYBgyPZxydaiJWnpJ49 4J4piUFMWFzH7mJQRzYs3Mw8vPBkW+MKQhms+SqKIRwMIGIQ7SVd6hV/mL2JRO4= =meSP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From mtg at gnu.org Tue Oct 10 18:33:26 2017 From: mtg at gnu.org (Mike Gerwitz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:33:26 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: (Duane Whitty's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:37:15 -0300") References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <87po9vnesp.fsf@gnu.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 12:37:15 -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: > On 17-10-10 10:13 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is >> used to describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should >> be used. >> >> Please see: >> >> https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#GNU-and-Linux >> > I respect your point-of-view and your right to express it. I would > like to point out though that this link, from gnu.org, would be > expected (at least by me) to promote a GNU centric and rightfully > self-promoting view of how to proceed. Of course it does. GnuPG is _part of_ the GNU Project. Not promoting its own ideals is working contrary to its goals. The link I provided is GNU policy. -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 https://mikegerwitz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtg at gnu.org Tue Oct 10 18:43:26 2017 From: mtg at gnu.org (Mike Gerwitz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:43:26 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: (Leo Gaspard's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2017 18:03:52 +0200") References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <874lr7nec1.fsf@gnu.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 18:03:52 +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: > On 10/10/2017 03:13 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 22:06:17 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >>> A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be >>> replaced with "GNU/Linux". >> >> GnuPG is part of the GNU operating system. Anywhere "Linux" is used to >> describe the GNU/Linux operating system, "GNU/Linux" should be used. > > The occurences of ?Linux? in the FAQ are in the following sentences, > according to a `git grep` in the FAQ directory: I haven't looked over the FAQ personally; I was just providing GNU's stance on the issue. But thank you for outlining it. >> Except for a slight wording change, this DCO is identical to the one > used by the Linux kernel. > > This sentence clearly deserves a Linux and not GNU/Linux... regardless > of whether GnuPG is part of the ?GNU operating system? (sorry for the > quotes, it's the first time I hear this phrase) or not. Yes, that shouldn't be GNU/Linux. >> - Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. > > Clearly Linux and not GNU/Linux once again. Right. >> (all Linux distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool) > > Do we really want to exclude distros based on the Linux kernel but not > on the GNU base utilities, but rather on eg. sbase [1]? I'd say there is > no compelling reason to, so no reason to switch to GNU/Linux here. If the intent is really to convey any distribution using the kernel Linux, then it could say any "distros based on the kernel Linux", or more weakly "Linux-based". I don't think that's what it means. >> *** ? for Linux? >> >> The bad news is there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on >> Linux systems. The good news is that it?s usually installed by >> default, so nothing needs to be downloaded! > > The same argument leads me to think there is no reason to switch to > GNU/Linux here again; distros without the GNU userspace don't have an > easier way to install than distros with the GNU userspace as far as I know. "Linux system" is explicitly mentioned as something to avoid in the maintainers document I referenced. >> **** ? for Debian GNU/Linux or Ubuntu? > > It's already GNU/Linux. Good! >> ** ? Linux or FreeBSD? >> >> [Follows a list of email clients compatible with non-{Windows,Mac} >> operating systems] > > Do Thunderbird, Gnus, Mutt, Kontact, Evolution or Claws-Mail not work on > computers which would have swapped the GNU userland with eg. sbase? If > so, maybe it'd be good to add a note stating that it doesn't work > without GNU tools, but I don't see any reason to exclude > non-GNU-userspace-based Linux distribution from the list, especially > given how FreeBSD is included in there too. Same as above. In any case, GNU packages have a bias toward GNU. Emphasizing "Linux-based" systems instead of GNU isn't much different than Apple advertising BSD-based systems instead of Mac. -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 https://mikegerwitz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 18:45:17 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:45:17 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Thanks for going through the specific instances of Linux in the FAQ, Leo. This is what i was asking for when i was wondering whether a concrete diff has been proposed. (where is the FAQ maintained, btw? how is one expected to submit patches?) I agree with all of Leo's conclusions except for the following: On Tue 2017-10-10 18:03:52 +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: >> (all Linux distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool) > > Do we really want to exclude distros based on the Linux kernel but not > on the GNU base utilities, but rather on eg. sbase [1]? I'd say there is > no compelling reason to, so no reason to switch to GNU/Linux here. I suspect that many minimal Linux-based operating systems (particularly one that uses sbase instead of the GNU userland) will *not* feature a suitable GnuPG tool. So the statement above is probably more accurate if you change it to GNU/Linux. Do you have a list of sbase+Linux distros that we can look at for comparison? Certainly, the Linux distro known as Android does *not* feature a suitable GnuPG tool :( >> *** ? for Linux? >> >> The bad news is there is no single, consistent way to install GnuPG on >> Linux systems. The good news is that it?s usually installed by >> default, so nothing needs to be downloaded! > > The same argument leads me to think there is no reason to switch to > GNU/Linux here again; distros without the GNU userspace don't have an > easier way to install than distros with the GNU userspace as far as I know. Again, i think this FAQ section is actually talking about GNU/Linux systems, and it would be more appropriate to say that explicitly, rather than to pretend that this covers every Linux-based operating system (it clearly does not). --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From andrewg at andrewg.com Tue Oct 10 18:56:05 2017 From: andrewg at andrewg.com (Andrew Gallagher) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:56:05 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87po9vnesp.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87po9vnesp.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/17 17:33, Mike Gerwitz wrote: > Not promoting its own ideals is working contrary to its goals. There is nothing in the GPL that requires one to be an evangelist. If the FAQ is incorrect or misleading, let's change it. But "insufficient fervour" is not sufficient grounds. -- Andrew Gallagher -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 862 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ben at adversary.org Tue Oct 10 19:06:36 2017 From: ben at adversary.org (Ben McGinnes) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:06:36 +1100 Subject: PGP for official documents / eIDAS and ZertES In-Reply-To: References: <065c726e-7922-0352-938a-bf2aa274d390@pocock.pro> <7a6ff952-835b-9a30-5176-1e06cebb4783@pocock.pro> <1db3339f-7b71-8279-3330-b45c99b7f65c@posteo.de> <98C1E414-7CE6-4EFC-BF70-B9106D0F182A@hoerbe.at> <87r2z218mw.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20170602203732.wao6rniog5zp6by7@adversary.org> Message-ID: <20171010170636.w5njoxuxxy3yjquz@adversary.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 08:40:38AM +0000, ankostis wrote: > But it doesn't have to be XML! > Besides ETSI, the european organization implementing eIDAS has 3 "standards" > (e.g. [1]): > XADES(XML), PADES (pdf), CADES - the last one doubting if it has any > modern use. > > Why not push them for a new PGPADES standard? For the same reason as not wanting to wrestle crypto and XML into one working thing: I'd like to keep the hair I have and not see it go as white as Ray Wise playing Leland Palmer and just as quickly. Regards, Ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mtg at gnu.org Tue Oct 10 19:09:46 2017 From: mtg at gnu.org (Mike Gerwitz) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:09:46 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: (Andrew Gallagher's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2017 17:56:05 +0100") References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87po9vnesp.fsf@gnu.org> Message-ID: <878tgjlyjp.fsf@gnu.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 17:56:05 +0100, Andrew Gallagher wrote: > On 10/10/17 17:33, Mike Gerwitz wrote: >> Not promoting its own ideals is working contrary to its goals. > > There is nothing in the GPL that requires one to be an evangelist. If > the FAQ is incorrect or misleading, let's change it. But "insufficient > fervour" is not sufficient grounds. There may be a misunderstanding. GnuPG is a package that is a part of the GNU operating system. The list of all such packages can be found here: https://www.gnu.org/software/ GNU is usually used with the kernel Linux. GNU doesn't require that packages support any other kernel (e.g. Hurd). But the operating system is GNU. GnuPG works on other operating systems, but GNU only requires that it work best on GNU, or at least as well as other operating systems. The GPL is unrelated to this discussion. -- Mike Gerwitz Free Software Hacker+Activist | GNU Maintainer & Volunteer GPG: D6E9 B930 028A 6C38 F43B 2388 FEF6 3574 5E6F 6D05 https://mikegerwitz.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 818 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 18:56:56 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:56:56 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <87mv4zhrfr.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Tue 2017-10-10 18:05:15 +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: > So we should call FreeBSD ?GNU/FreeBSD? instead? Sorry, I could not resist. Debian actually does ship a "port" that uses the FreeBSD kernel and the GNU userland, and it calls it GNU/kFreeBSD. https://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ This naming clarity is useful to distinguish it from the FreeBSD operating system, which uses the FreeBSD userland with the FreeBSD kernel. There is no single userland required for any kernel (though some userlands do require a specific kernel). When we're talking about GNU/Linux distros, we should name them for what they are. Enjoy, --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 19:04:06 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:04:06 -0400 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> Message-ID: <87k203hr3t.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Mon 2017-10-09 23:30:22 -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: > After saying all that I recall reading an article by the Washington > Post (if I recall correctly) that they use two computers in their > "safe-drop" system. The link you're looking for is: https://securedrop.org/ their documentation for transfer between machines is here: https://docs.securedrop.org/en/stable/set_up_transfer_device.html regards, --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From duane at nofroth.com Tue Oct 10 19:30:56 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:30:56 -0300 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <87k203hr3t.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <87k203hr3t.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <00438f75-b9cf-d88a-1bbe-3652da947bd3@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-10 02:04 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Mon 2017-10-09 23:30:22 -0300, Duane Whitty wrote: >> After saying all that I recall reading an article by the >> Washington Post (if I recall correctly) that they use two >> computers in their "safe-drop" system. > > The link you're looking for is: > > https://securedrop.org/ > > their documentation for transfer between machines is here: > > https://docs.securedrop.org/en/stable/set_up_transfer_device.html > > regards, > > --dkg > Thanks! Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ3QPOAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkp3kH/27bVFIV4hzz1t3MFfJpM1pW xXtznE+5pzdxA4YXDRN7zIEfchbjTjqT70phXDX5SkVT4agY9MgNs8MhYOy8aeAi pHVg+aNyDFp9kRvPahRpOQAhjhewEgPO4yaEyenKH4hCQ2EZMK9U93tlYG11rKBu 8EaN64d/NScLx7ngEPB9tooV1F9dyzDuNaXDw787YsapTG4N/hgjuKXMwu5YSOVb CE/6ppxTJJRxbYBPCymZvVmAiQ6hzWEMYfgsyL+D3AjgXIf1nLlcM1/3JSAaCuZ5 w9FmoX5BbTEMRL1/6GRDOYcv7Z4KeHOazZcjdaVYHTtZZcuiGd59VEjKBQGHixw= =9JNr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From leo at gaspard.io Tue Oct 10 19:46:28 2017 From: leo at gaspard.io (Leo Gaspard) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 19:46:28 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> On 10/10/2017 06:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:> (where is the FAQ maintained, btw? how is one expected to submit > patches?) I based my quotes on https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git , directory web/faq, running `git grep Linux`. > I suspect that many minimal Linux-based operating systems (particularly > one that uses sbase instead of the GNU userland) will *not* feature a > suitable GnuPG tool. So the statement above is probably more accurate > if you change it to GNU/Linux. > > Do you have a list of sbase+Linux distros that we can look at for > comparison? Hmm, I was thinking sta.li would have gnupg, but it looks like it doesn't come embedded. Thanks for noticing! I would thus like to withdraw this statement, as well as the other one you pointed out. That said, I wonder whether the sentence with ?all GNU/Linux distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool? would make sense at all, given GnuPG is, as pointed out by Mike, part of the GNU operating system, which would, if I understand correctly, mean that as soon as the distribution includes GNU it must include GnuPG? (I may easily be wrong in my interpretation of ?part of the GNU operating system?) If I'm correct and this would be a pleonasm, then maybe replacing it with ?most Linux distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool, with the notable exception of Android? would make more sense? Then again maybe GNU/Linux would be both more precise and simpler indeed, despite the pleonasm. Thanks for the comment! Leo -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ankostis at gmail.com Tue Oct 10 20:21:54 2017 From: ankostis at gmail.com (ankostis) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 21:21:54 +0300 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> Message-ID: On 10 October 2017 at 20:46, Leo Gaspard wrote: > On 10/10/2017 06:45 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:> (where is the FAQ > maintained, btw? how is one expected to submit >> patches?) > > I based my quotes on https://dev.gnupg.org/source/gnupg-doc.git , > directory web/faq, running `git grep Linux`. > >> I suspect that many minimal Linux-based operating systems (particularly >> one that uses sbase instead of the GNU userland) will *not* feature a >> suitable GnuPG tool. So the statement above is probably more accurate >> if you change it to GNU/Linux. >> >> Do you have a list of sbase+Linux distros that we can look at for >> comparison? > > Hmm, I was thinking sta.li would have gnupg, but it looks like it > doesn't come embedded. Thanks for noticing! > > I would thus like to withdraw this statement, as well as the other one > you pointed out. > > That said, I wonder whether the sentence with ?all GNU/Linux distros > feature a suitable GnuPG tool? would make sense at all, given GnuPG is, > as pointed out by Mike, part of the GNU operating system, which would, > if I understand correctly, mean that as soon as the distribution > includes GNU it must include GnuPG? (I may easily be wrong in my > interpretation of ?part of the GNU operating system?) If I'm correct and > this would be a pleonasm, then maybe replacing it with ?most Linux > distros feature a suitable GnuPG tool, with the notable exception of > Android? would make more sense? Then again maybe GNU/Linux would be both > more precise and simpler indeed, despite the pleonasm. Maybe start using "Gnu Variants"[1], because that is technically precise. For instance, this name includes also `cygwin`, which requires the typical configure-make-install procedure? Those compiling GnuPG for other platform may clarify the situation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_variants From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Tue Oct 10 20:23:23 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:23:23 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> Message-ID: <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Tue 2017-10-10 19:46:28 +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: > That said, I wonder whether the sentence with ?all GNU/Linux distros > feature a suitable GnuPG tool? would make sense at all, given GnuPG is, > as pointed out by Mike, part of the GNU operating system, which would, > if I understand correctly, mean that as soon as the distribution > includes GNU it must include GnuPG? (I may easily be wrong in my > interpretation of ?part of the GNU operating system?) There's no "must" that a GNU system contain GnuPG. For example, on Debian ("GNU/Linux"), it's possible in the "testing" version to have no gnupg package installed at all if you want a particularly minimal system. One narrowly-scoped tool from the GnuPG suite (gpgv) is required if you want secure software updates, but you can even do away with that if your updates are handled some other way (or if it is a one-shot system that will never be updated). That said, on most standard Debian systems, GnuPG is indeed installed by default, and even on systems where it isn't installed by default, it's a simple "apt install gnupg" away. So I think this FAQ is more correct if it's re-written to say "GNU/Linux" here and in the other place i mentioned. Amazing how much people want to comment on the color of this particular bikeshed! Can we get back to improving GnuPG itself? --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vedaal at nym.hush.com Tue Oct 10 20:26:42 2017 From: vedaal at nym.hush.com (vedaal at nym.hush.com) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:26:42 -0400 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 Message-ID: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> I recently got a new laptop, and installed Ubuntu 16.0.4 LTS and used the Ubuntu Software to install Kleopatra. Ubuntu 16.0.4 has GnuPG 1.4.20 installed by default. After installation, I tried to generate a keypair and could not. Here is what happened: =====[begin quoted terminal]===== p { margin-bottom: 0.1in; line-height: 120%; } londo at londo-earth-trinket:~$ gpg2 --gen-key gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Note: Use "gpg2 --full-gen-key" for a full featured key generation dialog. GnuPG needs to construct a user ID to identify your key. Real name: kleo sixteenOfour Email address: kleo at test.key You selected this USER-ID: "kleo sixteenOfour " Change (N)ame, (E)mail, or (O)kay/(Q)uit? o We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number generator a better chance to gain enough entropy. gpg: agent_genkey failed: Not supported Key generation failed: Not supported londo at londo-earth-trinket:~$ gpg2 --full-gen-key gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Please select what kind of key you want: (1) RSA and RSA (default) (2) DSA and Elgamal (3) DSA (sign only) (4) RSA (sign only) Your selection? 1 RSA keys may be between 1024 and 4096 bits long. What keysize do you want? (2048) Requested keysize is 2048 bits Please specify how long the key should be valid. 0 = key does not expire = key expires in n days w = key expires in n weeks m = key expires in n months y = key expires in n years Key is valid for? (0) Key does not expire at all Is this correct? (y/N) y GnuPG needs to construct a user ID to identify your key. Real name: kleo sixteenOfour Email address: kleo at test.key Comment: local keysigning only You selected this USER-ID: "kleo sixteenOfour (local keysigning only) " Change (N)ame, (C)omment, (E)mail or (O)kay/(Q)uit? o We need to generate a lot of random bytes. It is a good idea to perform some other action (type on the keyboard, move the mouse, utilize the disks) during the prime generation; this gives the random number generator a better chance to gain enough entropy. gpg: agent_genkey failed: Not supported Key generation failed: Not supported londo at londo-earth-trinket:~$ =====[end quoted terminal]===== What am I forgetting/doing wrong? TIA vedaal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From leo at gaspard.io Tue Oct 10 20:47:40 2017 From: leo at gaspard.io (Leo Gaspard) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:47:40 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <0a9b5cd0-6ec3-36e1-31c6-09b05e618656@gaspard.io> On 10/10/2017 08:23 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > On Tue 2017-10-10 19:46:28 +0200, Leo Gaspard wrote: >> That said, I wonder whether the sentence with ?all GNU/Linux distros >> feature a suitable GnuPG tool? would make sense at all, given GnuPG is, >> as pointed out by Mike, part of the GNU operating system, which would, >> if I understand correctly, mean that as soon as the distribution >> includes GNU it must include GnuPG? (I may easily be wrong in my >> interpretation of ?part of the GNU operating system?) > > There's no "must" that a GNU system contain GnuPG. > > [...] > > So I think this FAQ is more correct if it's re-written to say > "GNU/Linux" here and in the other place i mentioned. Agreeing here. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ben at adversary.org Tue Oct 10 20:55:40 2017 From: ben at adversary.org (Ben McGinnes) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 05:55:40 +1100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:06:17AM +0000, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > A request has been made that each instance of "Linux" in the FAQ be > replaced with "GNU/Linux". Oh ... say hi to RMS from us. ;) > I'm not inclined to make this change. However, in order to make > sure that the FAQ reflects the community's wishes, I'm submitting > the proposal here for community feedback. > > If anyone has strong feelings on it one way or another, chime in. I personally don't mind either way, but it is worth mentioning that in the context of the GPG FAQ, it might be more accurate to say that it is GNU/Linux. Unless, of course, there are examples of the current source code compiling on non-GNU/Linux systems successfully. Has anyone managed to get any part of the GPG libs to compile on Android/Linux? As far as I'm aware no one has and all OpenPGP implementations on Android devices require an entirely separate stack, usually a Java implementation, but I'll be very happy to be proven wrong on that. Regards, Ben -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 659 bytes Desc: not available URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 21:20:53 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:20:53 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> On 10/10/17 11:04, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > You snipped the bit where I said "Linux" has two meanings in the English > language depending on context. Given your admirable, though misplaced, > zeal, I doubt there's a considered argument to be had here. In the previous message you said ?"Linux" can be the kernel or a distro.?. But this is outright incorrect (Linux is not a distribution). Thus I elided this part according to my practice of omitting irrelevant text in a reply to keep the messages to a readable size. The name ?Linux? was invented for the kernel for which Linus Torvalds is known. Later, lazy people incorrecting began using the same word to refer to basically any software bundle that include this kernel. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 21:30:40 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:30:40 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <83c9de5c-a3d6-3bb5-96ac-dc23a740ebd3@yandex.com> On 10/10/17 11:05, Leo Gaspard wrote: >> Recall that the most important contribution of the GNU project is not >> the software packages, but starting the free software movement and >> developing the most important licenses. GNU/Linux distributions are only >> possible because of free software ideology, even though many such would >> hate to acknowledge this. > > So we should call FreeBSD ?GNU/FreeBSD? instead? Sorry, I could not resist. Nice straw man fallacy. I have never asked anybody to call ?GNU/*? all free software projects, or anything similar, so your argument is unsound. Moreover, there is no analogy between ?FreeBSD? and ?Linux?: *The name ?FreeBSD? has always referred to a specific distribution. That is how people use it. There is no problem here. *The name ?Linux? refers to a specific *kernel* (from ?Linus?, the first author of this kernel). If you use the name ?Linux? to refer to the kernel, there is no problem, but using it for anything else is incorrect, even if it *includes* Linux. Would it be correct to refer to a car as an ?engine?, because it includes an engine? -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Tue Oct 10 21:36:57 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:36:57 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010160255.26D0D20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <054a9d9a-a25b-ba73-2866-bc624ed6da76@digitalbrains.com> <0b756a63-dcc2-db20-7af5-a45a1d3ea9ec@yandex.com> <20171010160255.26D0D20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <386aff9b-94cc-9715-6236-d84048fc3b76@yandex.com> On 10/10/17 11:02, Ralph Corderoy wrote: > Please note, it's "GnuPG". That's the project name. If you wish to > acknowledge that it's a GNU project then it's GNU GnuPG. :-) Well, then blame this project for being undecided about what its own name is. They use both ?GNU Privacy Guard? (which I abbreviate as ?GNU PG?) and ?GnuPG?. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Oct 11 04:49:57 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 22:49:57 -0400 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <7f7baaf5-a22e-ce58-ee7a-cafb9153ff25@sixdemonbag.org> >> The point of using the >> old photoreceptor was that way we were dead certain there was no >> exploitable integrated circuit in the photoreceptor... > > I don't really see the point of purposely reducing the bitrate of a > serial link. Supply chain security. The more complicated the hardware, the harder it is to prove the ICs and firmware haven't been exploited. If you're using hardware you scavenged from a ham radio swap meet, you can be pretty sure there's nothing malicious in the hardware. Our use case was a vote tabulating system communicating realtime updates with a publicly-facing web server. The assumption was the web server was compromised: given that, how can you be absolutely sure there's no communication channel back to the trusted tabulator? Answer: a 1960s photoreceptor. We didn't need a fast link from the tabulator to the web server: we needed a slow and absolutely, positively, definitively one-way link. From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Oct 11 05:55:32 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:55:32 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: > Amazing how much people want to comment on the color of this > particular bikeshed! I agree. Bikeshedding frustrates me: I'll leave it at that. Reviewing the last forty-odd emails on the subject, there are a small number of regular contributors to the community who are in favor, a small number opposed, and a smaller number of mostly-lurkers who have exceptionally strong feelings. I do not see a community consensus one way or another. I'll continue with my original plan. Should any of the people with exceptionally strong feelings on the subject want to fork the FAQ, well, it's under a permissive license for a reason -- just please don't claim that it's the official FAQ. :) From wk at gnupg.org Wed Oct 11 08:26:21 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:26:21 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> (Ben McGinnes's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2017 05:55:40 +1100") References: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> Message-ID: <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:55, ben at adversary.org said: > Has anyone managed to get any part of the GPG libs to compile on > Android/Linux? As far as I'm aware no one has and all OpenPGP There might be a problems with the current release but GnuPG is expected to build for Android just fine. And on AIX and HP/UX. There might be build problems but that are bugs we need to fix. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Wed Oct 11 08:29:35 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:29:35 +0200 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> (vedaal@nym.hush.com's message of "Tue, 10 Oct 2017 14:26:42 -0400") References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:26, vedaal at nym.hush.com said: > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. You left out the line which tells the libgcrypt version numbers like in $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.1-beta1 libgcrypt 1.8.1 [...] Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From 400thecat at gmx.ch Wed Oct 11 08:53:59 2017 From: 400thecat at gmx.ch (Fourhundred Thecat) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:53:59 +0200 Subject: gnupg on read-only filesystem In-Reply-To: <87bmlfjeqa.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> References: <59DC8A04.2020505@gmx.ch> <87bmlfjeqa.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <59DDC007.9080907@gmx.ch> > On 2017-10-10 15:48, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: > > You could try the following: > > export GNUPGHOME=$(mktemp -d) > gpg -d file.gpg > rm -rf "$GNUPGHOME" thank you, that works. But it still starts the gpg-agent. How can I use gpg without the agent ? From neal at walfield.org Wed Oct 11 09:14:19 2017 From: neal at walfield.org (Neal H. Walfield) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:14:19 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <87vajm9mwk.wl-neal@walfield.org> At Tue, 10 Oct 2017 23:55:32 -0400, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > > > Amazing how much people want to comment on the color of this > > particular bikeshed! > > I agree. Bikeshedding frustrates me: I'll leave it at that. > > Reviewing the last forty-odd emails on the subject, there are a small > number of regular contributors to the community who are in favor, a > small number opposed, and a smaller number of mostly-lurkers who have > exceptionally strong feelings. > > I do not see a community consensus one way or another. I'll continue > with my original plan. I didn't realize that there was a vote. FWIW, I agree with dkg, although I'm not particularly passionate about it. :) Neal From neal at walfield.org Wed Oct 11 09:15:41 2017 From: neal at walfield.org (Neal H. Walfield) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:15:41 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> At Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:26:21 +0200, Werner Koch wrote: > On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:55, ben at adversary.org said: > > > Has anyone managed to get any part of the GPG libs to compile on > > Android/Linux? As far as I'm aware no one has and all OpenPGP > > There might be a problems with the current release but GnuPG is expected > to build for Android just fine. And on AIX and HP/UX. There might be > build problems but that are bugs we need to fix. I'm aware of an effort that tried to port GnuPG to Android. bionic was a source of several problems. As far as I know, the work is currently stalled. From peter at digitalbrains.com Wed Oct 11 12:18:19 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 12:18:19 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <7f7baaf5-a22e-ce58-ee7a-cafb9153ff25@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> <7f7baaf5-a22e-ce58-ee7a-cafb9153ff25@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/17 04:49, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > The assumption was the web server was compromised: given that, how > can you be absolutely sure there's no communication channel back to > the trusted tabulator? Ah, this isn't about corrupting data on the line, about getting wrong data in what is the correct direction. This is about ensuring that a simplex link is really a simplex link. It's about data not going in the wrong direction. Furthermore, it is a simplex link from a trusted to an untrusted system. Whereas the OP was talking about wanting to transfer data from an untrusted to a trusted system. Our frames of reference were different: I was actually mostly thinking about a duplex system, which if needed could be reduced to simplex, in which case it would be the other way around than your use-case. I never considered the scenario where the trusted system was already compromised and you need to make sure it is completely deaf and blind so an attacker can't influence it in real time. > We didn't need a fast link from the tabulator to the web server: we > needed a slow and absolutely, positively, definitively one-way link. I'm sure you're aware of this, but I think it's useful to point out since this is a public mailing list :-). If your attacker can get physically somewhat close to your tabulator, there are RF and powerline attacks to consider as well... if you don't trust the IC's in the tabulator, that can get tricky. The disadvantage for your attacker is lack of economy of scale: an attack through internet can be done from your home to anywhere on the planet. If you need to be in the vicinity of your target, you lose that. Cheers, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Wed Oct 11 14:04:34 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:04:34 -0400 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> <7f7baaf5-a22e-ce58-ee7a-cafb9153ff25@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <89ce841a-f821-e5ff-cb5b-d6ce877cf69c@sixdemonbag.org> > Our frames of reference were different: I was actually mostly > thinking about a duplex system, which if needed could be reduced to > simplex, in which case it would be the other way around than your > use-case. I never considered the scenario where the trusted system > was already compromised and you need to make sure it is completely > deaf and blind so an attacker can't influence it in real time. Right. Our assumption was that the web server would be compromised within moments of bringing up the external-facing network. Permitting trusted machines to communicate in a *provably* one-way manner with systems outside the DMZ is an important problem -- not just being able to do it, but coming up with a way simple enough that non-technical users can understand. > The disadvantage for your attacker is lack of economy of scale: an > attack through internet can be done from your home to anywhere on the > planet. If you need to be in the vicinity of your target, you lose > that. That's why the vote tabulating office is guarded by people with guns. :) From andrewg at andrewg.com Wed Oct 11 14:34:55 2017 From: andrewg at andrewg.com (Andrew Gallagher) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 13:34:55 +0100 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <89ce841a-f821-e5ff-cb5b-d6ce877cf69c@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <2b94784c-af6b-2afe-d1b9-21e93e0f699e@digitalbrains.com> <7f7baaf5-a22e-ce58-ee7a-cafb9153ff25@sixdemonbag.org> <89ce841a-f821-e5ff-cb5b-d6ce877cf69c@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <79606002-d2de-0031-98c4-e0ea18221052@andrewg.com> On 11/10/17 13:04, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Permitting > trusted machines to communicate in a *provably* one-way manner with > systems outside the DMZ is an important problem -- not just being able > to do it, but coming up with a way simple enough that non-technical > users can understand. Point a webcam at the local console. ;-) -- Andrew Gallagher -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 862 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pete at heypete.com Wed Oct 11 15:36:20 2017 From: pete at heypete.com (Pete Stephenson) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 15:36:20 +0200 Subject: Working with an Online and Offline Computer when using GnuPG - Best Practice? In-Reply-To: <3724cb07-b33f-b459-64d7-c9e0841a7918@posteo.net> References: <20171009185240.4595fd14@iria.my-fqdn.de> <1507620414.1020975.1133571248.3A6B9C19@webmail.messagingengine.com> <3724cb07-b33f-b459-64d7-c9e0841a7918@posteo.net> Message-ID: <1507728980.3240335.1135234696.0F87A3A2@webmail.messagingengine.com> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017, at 05:39 PM, Whitey wrote: > Pete Stephenson wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 9, 2017, at 06:53 PM, Stefan Claas wrote: > >> I read once here on the Mailing List that one should only use > >> trusted USB devices, whatever that means, when using an USB > >> device. > > > > If you must use USB devices for some reason, take a look at the > > > > flash drive. > > > > It's designed specifically to protect against "badUSB", where the > > controller and firmware can be compromised. The controller has the > > developer's public key baked in during manufacture. The firmware is > > signed and can only be loaded once (no provision is made for > > in-the-field firmware updates). The controller verifies the firmware and > > its signature at every power-on. If a malicious actor had physical > > access and re-flashed the firmware, the controller would notice and fail > > to load. > > > > It also has a physical write-protect switch that can prevent unwanted > > writes. > > Since a flash drive is a read/write device, when would writes be > unwanted? When should I use this? Vague answer: that depends on your threat model. When interacting with an untrusted system, you may not want the untrusted system to be able to write data to the USB drive that might also be used on the trusted system. In my use case, I was more interested in the novelty and principle of having a signed, verified firmware running on the device that is not vulnerable to the badUSB attack. The write protect switch is actually a bit of a hassle for me, as the screen printing indicating which position is read-only has worn off with use, so I always accidentally set it to read-only when I want it in read/write mode (in much the same way that all USB plugs exist in a superposition of multiple states, all aligned the wrong way). :) -- Pete Stephenson From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Wed Oct 11 16:42:38 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:42:38 -0400 Subject: gnupg on read-only filesystem In-Reply-To: <59DDC007.9080907@gmx.ch> References: <59DC8A04.2020505@gmx.ch> <87bmlfjeqa.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <59DDC007.9080907@gmx.ch> Message-ID: <87mv4xg2zl.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Wed 2017-10-11 08:53:59 +0200, Fourhundred Thecat wrote: >> On 2017-10-10 15:48, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote: >> >> You could try the following: >> >> export GNUPGHOME=$(mktemp -d) >> gpg -d file.gpg >> rm -rf "$GNUPGHOME" > > thank you, that works. > > But it still starts the gpg-agent. > > How can I use gpg without the agent ? Modern GnuPG delegates passphrase caching and secret key management to the gpg-agent co-process. The gpg-agent process should disappear as soon as you remove the ephemeral home directory. Why do you care whether gpg is one process or two processes? --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Wed Oct 11 16:40:42 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 10:40:42 -0400 Subject: GnuPG on Android [was: Re: FAQ and GNU] In-Reply-To: <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> References: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> Message-ID: <87po9tg32t.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Wed 2017-10-11 09:15:41 +0200, Neal H. Walfield wrote: > At Wed, 11 Oct 2017 08:26:21 +0200, > Werner Koch wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:55, ben at adversary.org said: >> >> > Has anyone managed to get any part of the GPG libs to compile on >> > Android/Linux? As far as I'm aware no one has and all OpenPGP >> >> There might be a problems with the current release but GnuPG is expected >> to build for Android just fine. And on AIX and HP/UX. There might be >> build problems but that are bugs we need to fix. > > I'm aware of an effort that tried to port GnuPG to Android. bionic > was a source of several problems. As far as I know, the work is > currently stalled. I've been asked about this repeatedly myself, and my impression aligns with what Neal is saying, but i'd be happy to be wrong. here's the project i was thinking of that was farthest along in terms of system integration on Android is: https://guardianproject.info/code/gnupg/ At any rate, it sounds like the details here might be something that we want to put in the FAQ :) Clearly it is *not* the case that most Android-based Linux systems (which is to say, most Linux-based systems, when measuring by installation count) come with GnuPG installed by default, alas. :( --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Wed Oct 11 17:47:29 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:47:29 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> (Neal H. Walfield's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:15:41 +0200") References: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> Message-ID: <87tvz5hejy.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:15, neal at walfield.org said: > I'm aware of an effort that tried to port GnuPG to Android. bionic > was a source of several problems. As far as I know, the work is Actually we solved the Bionic problems a long time ago. The major problem was actually custom pinentry for android. That has been written and I have seen reports that everything worked. However, the guardianproject ran out of funding and the involved hackers moved on to other projects Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From neal at walfield.org Wed Oct 11 19:54:58 2017 From: neal at walfield.org (Neal H. Walfield) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 19:54:58 +0200 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <87tvz5hejy.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010185540.tqy53jmb2lwyi6wb@adversary.org> <87sheqjj3m.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87tvz69mua.wl-neal@walfield.org> <87tvz5hejy.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <87po9ta7t9.wl-neal@walfield.org> At Wed, 11 Oct 2017 17:47:29 +0200, Werner Koch wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 09:15, neal at walfield.org said: > > > I'm aware of an effort that tried to port GnuPG to Android. bionic > > was a source of several problems. As far as I know, the work is > > Actually we solved the Bionic problems a long time ago. The major > problem was actually custom pinentry for android. That has been > written and I have seen reports that everything worked. That's great to know, thanks! Unfortunately, it appears that there have either been regressions or the people that I spoke with made some mistakes. From vedaal at nym.hush.com Wed Oct 11 20:56:43 2017 From: vedaal at nym.hush.com (vedaal at nym.hush.com) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:56:43 -0400 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> On 10/11/2017 at 2:33 AM, "Werner Koch" wrote:On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 20:26, vedaal at nym.hush.com said: > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11; Copyright (C) 2016 Free Software Foundation, Inc. You left out the line which tells the libgcrypt version numbers like in $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.1-beta1 libgcrypt 1.8.1 [...] ===== Sorry, here it is: londo at londo-earth-trinket:~$ gpg2 --verbose --verbose --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11 libgcrypt 1.6.5 Should I get the new Libcrypt? TIA Vedaal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From honza.klos at gmail.com Wed Oct 11 13:59:59 2017 From: honza.klos at gmail.com (Honza Klos) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2017 11:59:59 +0000 Subject: gpg2 missing Message-ID: Hello, am I missing something? gpg2.exe is not installed on installation of gpg4win 3.0.0. I am well aware that it is supposed to be the same binary as gpg.exe, however the behaviour (namely whether to run agent / GUI pinentry on password prompt) changes depending on how it is called. My git was configured tu utilize gpg2. Simply creating a symlink works, changing git configuration to gpg.exe does not work in TortoiseGit (as expected) as password is read from STDIN, not pinentry(-32).exe. Regards, Jan Klos -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 12 09:13:24 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 09:13:24 +0200 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> (vedaal@nym.hush.com's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2017 14:56:43 -0400") References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 20:56, vedaal at nym.hush.com said: > londo at londo-earth-trinket:~$ gpg2 --verbose --verbose --version > gpg (GnuPG) 2.1.11 > libgcrypt 1.6.5 > > Should I get the new Libcrypt? Yes, you should get 1.7. And while you are already at it, you better also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we did since January 2016. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Thu Oct 12 10:19:27 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 10:19:27 +0200 Subject: Redundant certificate in keyring In-Reply-To: <79427349-4a5d-e03a-075e-84a5918eb6ed@sixdemonbag.org> (Robert J. Hansen's message of "Tue, 3 Oct 2017 03:12:12 -0400") References: <79427349-4a5d-e03a-075e-84a5918eb6ed@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <87a80w4w34.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 09:12, rjh at sixdemonbag.org said: > Somehow, this cert got introduced into my keyring twice. I don't know I assume you are hit by https://dev.gnupg.org/T3446 most likey because you used auto-key-retrieve with Enigmail. > There appears to be a bug in the keybox code; unfortunately, I'm not It should be the same with the old keyring format because it is a higher level problem. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Thu Oct 12 12:09:44 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 12:09:44 +0200 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <6d238ee9-1992-9cca-dbcb-eac182ce19dd@digitalbrains.com> On 12/10/17 09:13, Werner Koch wrote: > And while you are already at it, you better > also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we > did since January 2016. I think Vedaal is just using the gnupg2 package provided by Ubuntu 16.04 LTS: https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/gnupg2 Current package version is 2.1.11-6ubuntu2. Shouldn't important fixes have been backported by Ubuntu? Although it is odd this package hasn't been updated for 18 months... Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ralph at inputplus.co.uk Thu Oct 12 17:45:22 2017 From: ralph at inputplus.co.uk (Ralph Corderoy) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:45:22 +0100 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> Message-ID: <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Hi Mario, > > You snipped the bit where I said "Linux" has two meanings in the > > English language depending on context. > > In the previous message you said ?"Linux" can be the kernel or a > distro.?. "Linux" can be the kernel or a distro. Context makes this clear in the majority of cases. Appending `kernel' or `distribution' in the odd remaining case is sufficient. > But this is outright incorrect (Linux is not a distribution). You cut the important part. > Thus I elided this part according to my practice of omitting > irrelevant text in a reply to keep the messages to a readable size. Or that contradicts your argument. > The name ?Linux? was invented for the kernel for which Linus Torvalds > is known. Later, lazy people incorrecting began using the same word to > refer to basically any software bundle that include this kernel. No, not lazy people. English-speaking people. The language is constantly evolving, taking on foreign words, allowing its rules to adjust over time, assimilating... That's why it's on course to be the world's language, if it's not already. The bulk of people use "Linux" to mean both terms, in casual and formal speech and writing. You may as well try and insist we use "United States of America" all the time instead of "America"; context alone typically implies the intended meaning. > > Given your admirable, though misplaced, zeal, I doubt there's a > > considered argument to be had here. I should take my own advice! > Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. > https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan `Duck to go' is an unfortunate choice. :-) -- Cheers, Ralph. https://plus.google.com/+RalphCorderoy From bukowskiscat at gmail.com Thu Oct 12 17:16:04 2017 From: bukowskiscat at gmail.com (Phil Dobbin) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 16:16:04 +0100 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <6d238ee9-1992-9cca-dbcb-eac182ce19dd@digitalbrains.com> References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <6d238ee9-1992-9cca-dbcb-eac182ce19dd@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <77a79802-bd23-f66c-f88b-32e1b083cb80@gmail.com> On 12/10/17 11:09, Peter Lebbing wrote: > On 12/10/17 09:13, Werner Koch wrote: >> And while you are already at it, you better >> also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we >> did since January 2016. > > I think Vedaal is just using the gnupg2 package provided by Ubuntu 16.04 > LTS: > > https://packages.ubuntu.com/xenial/gnupg2 > > Current package version is 2.1.11-6ubuntu2. Shouldn't important fixes > have been backported by Ubuntu? Although it is odd this package hasn't > been updated for 18 months... I'm using the stock version that's installed with 16.04.3 LTS & have encountered no problems at all FWIW. Cheers, Phil. -- "For 50 years it was like being chained to an idiot" Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty https://www.linuxcounter.net/cert/550036.png -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Thu Oct 12 20:56:57 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 14:56:57 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: > The bulk of people use "Linux" to mean both terms, in casual and formal > speech and writing. You may as well try and insist we use "United > States of America" all the time instead of "America"; context alone > typically implies the intended meaning. It's tempting, but unfair, to call these people a bunch of ideologues. Most of us on this mailing list are ideologues, after all. Human rights, privacy, software freedom -- these are all pretty good ideas, and I think we're right to be motivated by them. They seem to be logologues instead: it isn't enough to have the right ideas and be working to put them into action, but we need to only use the right language about it, as if the words were more important than the deeds. One of my closest friends is a staunch atheist, the kind who thinks Richard Dawkins is too conciliatory towards people of faith. Recently he suffered a stroke. At the first sign he told one of his friends, "I'm stroking out: help me." He then sat there, cool as a cucumber with a Zen smile on his face, as everyone jumped into action around him. It unnerved the paramedics, who thought his utter calm was a sign he didn't understand what was happening. Quite the opposite: as he explained to the doctors, he understood what was happening perfectly well and that's why he was so calm. What was happening was he'd asked his friends to save him, and so he was going to get saved: why should he worry? Whenever he tells that story I laugh. A man who claims to have no faith demonstrates the power of it. The way he *lives* faith, keeping cheerful in the face of imminent death just on the strength of his conviction that his friends would save him, is awe-inspiring. I have better sense than to tell him this, though: he'd get grouchy and accuse me of being really annoying -- and he'd be right. We can both enjoy the benefits of faith in our lives, even if only one of us believes in God. Ideologues: good. Logologues: really annoying. I will leave any application of this to the GNU/Linux-vs-Linux, or Free Software-vs-Open Source, arguments to the reader. I will, however, ask that we remember we're ideologues of deeply compatible stripes. :) From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Fri Oct 13 00:29:51 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 17:29:51 -0500 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> Message-ID: <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> Despite the bulk of your message, the only attempt at an argument is ?English is an evolving language?. The rest is completely irrelevant. That English is a changing language is not a justification to misuse words. The word ?Linux? meant a kernel when it was introduced to informatics and it still does. The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact that it is incorrect. Other examples: ?try and? (when it should be ?try to?), ?wanna?, ?gotta?, ?electric current flows? (current may flow; but most of the time this is erroneous and the phrase should be ?charge flows?). If you reply with another iteration of the same fallacy or irrelevant comments, I will ignore your message. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 13 00:50:55 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 18:50:55 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> Message-ID: <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> > The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a linguistic > construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact that it is > incorrect. It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, where there's an actual institution charged with the development of the language, the *only* definition of correctness in English is found in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. You can insist all you want that a cheater is someone appointed by the Crown to look after royal escheats, but (a) nobody cares that's what the word originally meant and (b) you'll be using the language incorrectly. (How did cheater get associated with dishonest people? Let's say the Crown's cheaters had a certain reputation...) From 2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-groups at riseup.net Fri Oct 13 00:58:45 2017 From: 2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-groups at riseup.net (MFPA) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 23:58:45 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <83c9de5c-a3d6-3bb5-96ac-dc23a740ebd3@yandex.com> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> <83c9de5c-a3d6-3bb5-96ac-dc23a740ebd3@yandex.com> Message-ID: <748750259.20171012235845@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Tuesday 10 October 2017 at 8:30:40 PM, in , Mario Castel?n Castro wrote:- > Would it be > correct to refer to > a car as an ?engine?, because it includes an engine? It is usual in and around London to call a car a "motor". Calling it an "engine" seems no more or no less correct. - -- Best regards MFPA Reality is nothing but a collective hunch. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iNUEARYKAH0WIQSWDIYo1ZL/jN6LsL/g4t7h1sju+gUCWd/zrl8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0OTYw Qzg2MjhENTkyRkY4Q0RFOEJCMEJGRTBFMkRFRTFENkM4RUVGQQAKCRDg4t7h1sju +o/PAQDRxblTje6sZm+eq/tF6exUuUUyFH4qnZx9mLLw7QeVJQD/Wu7YHeq6a5O9 ll2uHgwOS7i9axPRzTCU3bwp5Ern9gaJApMEAQEKAH0WIQRSX6konxd5jbM7JygT DfUWES/A/wUCWd/zrl8UgAAAAAAuAChpc3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVu cGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NTI1RkE5Mjg5RjE3Nzk4REIzM0IyNzI4MTMw REY1MTYxMTJGQzBGRgAKCRATDfUWES/A/4jaD/9HwEW91DAgoROu5bBCm1u3uxci j2oJ/feRU//m8VWzbtVn+ZRqd0+q9cogelJhR27vtHi8dMgudjw4ivrmwXbM4SPu SJj4igk3BertWeEfd1xlmAMosh+XahescDaUeyRPCbk+IUPefT5jRb0/JIyWBdR/ TkCVpZYc9x4xFlbKzq7+mOmM5YTbnrS7htkpTrfXv3ViDe/rcr77Md9Rh4d3CTFg /u9gJyo3GXNy4xoxPy3Ub5jSgesU1fRviA8+oAWbRv3tZkTfP87s+/VIXAh4nABg SvSKUa3vbgOTIbZ/MTnFBO/MBgmkqGXuvC5IhN7NMzEYWtP/2h7Si9UUddBAlU4d Id+1oT2vCPuEaaACvdTy1XWaBKAGp65FjGV8WI2t37jMGcqXUedcIv9Txi0W7VzN TvYZ7SAHjlf6V8hD3f5s8raE+Igr5SXDxLYU/j++pAsE9jnyPPcA/j5PxI2eAjh9 ALhpygStajPl0MAsUSIGqI7nLf6CKrQjPZ/ucBXndPZoF7eNhVJdetdNYWD3Q32u 4GVoNuXjYlGE2iBgkilTeDTSLqdHP5ZtQyGar9nNp4wj/q5H8cLhzH1uAuxcfzGc b4Jx/5fyRvYZYVn7OT9PhImZw7o9+lP9dEPa5IsaYsl7sbadqByYwRS+WNW8Mgj7 Bnm46BMoet0SJyS/4A== =uzor -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From youcanlinux at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 02:20:30 2017 From: youcanlinux at gmail.com (Daniel Villarreal) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 20:20:30 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <47b363d7-e239-917c-a8b2-48fb139789c6@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/12/17 18:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a >> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact >> that it is incorrect. > > It quite definitely does. This is silly. I am flabbergasted at this assertion. > ... the *only* definition of correctness in English is found> in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. For someone who touts himself as a "languages geek extraordinaire," I am shocked that you'd claim this. I don't expect Germans to communicate in anything other than German. I appreciate that the main developer communicates in this forum in English, but I certainly don't feel he owes it to anyone. Servus, Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEL24Nw4XiXsDaAz9b8lGJOKg+e0kFAlngBsAACgkQ8lGJOKg+ e0mlCAf9F9HSRx1Foz8kWNPA0B7hu3Zkt4yOtTy8q5l8h+VrBWsqcx7S9sMgGUj0 wXpWpAs048oTtOTo08lMt38XtmnB7JpAAVZjCD+EvsJXxoqSxaEmZzOT2t5ikF5g sPGAPozZQ+xO7k5ySl+v4BHMe6iZtgEQ/50G9k1Iyqid/sV69udJqaYUvQf9sZj9 C4xd9DCAqvZQ4ayOHuRoGe3D43Re+eH4eMwhs4usuaedqP3D4CmS8EoRpjaVRen0 SGB+RSICW7u7Bh9VphINmTDjRUwLj7UUtjIunQgAQmlkmmXrTMkt6vOH9fjFB9Tl 0F1vLzbUyDdcZJV/jYw9eLOqtO2z0A== =ulnO -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 13 04:54:45 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2017 22:54:45 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <47b363d7-e239-917c-a8b2-48fb139789c6@gmail.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <47b363d7-e239-917c-a8b2-48fb139789c6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <2648b35c-ba89-206e-afd7-65b815f43302@sixdemonbag.org> >>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a >>> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact >>> that it is incorrect. > >> It quite definitely does. > > This is silly. I am flabbergasted at this assertion. Great: you learned something today! Read up on linguistic prescriptivism and descriptivism; you'll find it rewarding. Style guides, dictionaries, and grammatical references are useful tools in that they write down the tacit and informal agreements the world has made about how to use language. However, they're always behind the times because the language is in constant flux. To understand English, one must look at how it is actually spoken. > For someone who touts himself as a "languages geek extraordinaire," I > am shocked that you'd claim this. What, that I'm a linguistic descriptivist? Dude, I also use words like "cromulent"[1], enjoy a good split infinitive[2], use "they" as a singular epicene[3], and when I'm really feeling naughty I'll drink wine straight from the bottle and read James Joyce[4]. ... And why, yes, my mother *is* an English teacher, and I *do* have a liberal arts degree. :) [1] Recently added to dictionaries, despite it being an utterly made-up word, due to how often it was being used in language [2] "To boldly go where no one has gone before!" [3] ... along with the Bront? sisters, Thackeray, and Shakespeare [4] "I was a Flower of the mountain yes when I put the rose in my hair like the Andalusian girls used or shall I wear a red yes and how he kissed me under the Moorish Wall and I thought well as well him as another and then I asked him with my eyes to ask again yes and then he asked me would I yes to say yes my mountain flower and first I put my arms around him yes and drew him down to me so he could feel my breasts all perfume yes and his heart was going like mad and yes I said yes I will Yes." From tlikonen at iki.fi Fri Oct 13 07:45:15 2017 From: tlikonen at iki.fi (Teemu Likonen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:45:15 +0300 Subject: auto-key-retrieve usefulness/annoyance In-Reply-To: <87poa1ecow.fsf@mithlond.arda> (Teemu Likonen's message of "Thu, 05 Oct 2017 20:17:51 +0300") References: <8ac406ab-4176-06ee-aba8-0748c334aeb1@mecadu.org> <20171001183328.GA2648@c720-r314251> <84da0770-2dbe-7e16-535a-455c3a964fa6@mecadu.org> <20171002143758.GA3268@c720-r314251> <87fuay3i8q.fsf_-_@mithlond.arda> <87efqixenx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <87poa1ecow.fsf@mithlond.arda> Message-ID: <8760bjmwic.fsf@iki.fi> Teemu Likonen [2017-10-05 20:17:51+03] wrote: > Werner Koch [2017-10-05 09:00:18+02] wrote: >> I have exactly the same problem but I do it anwyat - there is not >> much we can do about it. The default timeout for such lookups are 2 >> seconds. You can lower this to one second using >> >> connect-quick-timeout 1 >> >> in dirmngr.conf. > > Thanks. That helps noticeably. And yes, I use auto-key-retrieve > anyway. It's a nice feature. I have sometimes persuaded people to > upload their key to the server pool. Unfortunately "--refresh-key" doesn't work well with "connect-quick-timeout 1" anymore, at least not through Tor network. It seems that the timeout is too short. I'm back to the default settings and the long delays when the key is not on servers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 487 bytes Desc: not available URL: From youcanlinux at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 11:53:30 2017 From: youcanlinux at gmail.com (Daniel Villarreal) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 05:53:30 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <2648b35c-ba89-206e-afd7-65b815f43302@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <47b363d7-e239-917c-a8b2-48fb139789c6@gmail.com> <2648b35c-ba89-206e-afd7-65b815f43302@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <08d45e97-3b9e-d737-ed9f-9833fe1b8e4b@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/12/17 22:54, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> ... For someone who touts himself as a "languages geek >> extraordinaire," I am shocked that you'd claim this. > > What, that I'm a linguistic descriptivist? Dude... So how do you apply your superior language skills to improving gnupg nomenclature and documentation ? re: https://www.gnupg.org/documentation/manuals.html Any chance you could put those in EPUB and other formats? http://idpf.org/epub Thanks, Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEL24Nw4XiXsDaAz9b8lGJOKg+e0kFAlngjRAACgkQ8lGJOKg+ e0k01Qf+ImdKDKGdDatJ0qIHLPOYU4AbdIr434GfHwLHdg/oZiIz+7+r1RN+lupZ Yrj369m1wD8zLmZQobcRsMBiK/GKUGAKfLjqWl7re8GfuXVLrK9f5IBQgE0e3JmG 3Ypj9zt+dmD6YfCzC7WP5YIe09L9yfR+EKn/ryoZpmUnZ54ujaWhNAWW9+8zNiBB 0v0L42cZfLgDBFxHIdgqAF691BwzyTSgsyQR7jJrm+TG3pTHPesUt1CP3+gGNBPO 51F4b0EYwoqBkznbFj2IVPDlpY6HUeYnhk6Y07dt8NEKPyiXiBsu1q+Oo/xh1oU4 NTSr/ocq3HbxqzO9/dPGdvN667ZdUw== =foNu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Fri Oct 13 15:27:34 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 08:27:34 -0500 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <748750259.20171012235845@riseup.net> References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> <83c9de5c-a3d6-3bb5-96ac-dc23a740ebd3@yandex.com> <748750259.20171012235845@riseup.net> Message-ID: On 12/10/17 17:58, MFPA wrote: >> Would it be >> correct to refer to >> a car as an ?engine?, because it includes an engine? > > It is usual in and around London to call a car a "motor". Alright. > Calling it an "engine" seems no more or no less correct. But one can not conclude that it is correct just because it is common. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 13 15:46:04 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:46:04 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <08d45e97-3b9e-d737-ed9f-9833fe1b8e4b@gmail.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <47b363d7-e239-917c-a8b2-48fb139789c6@gmail.com> <2648b35c-ba89-206e-afd7-65b815f43302@sixdemonbag.org> <08d45e97-3b9e-d737-ed9f-9833fe1b8e4b@gmail.com> Message-ID: <930df902-df8e-6796-a4af-f6bfabff238d@sixdemonbag.org> > So how do you apply your superior language skills to improving gnupg > nomenclature and documentation ? By writing and maintaining the FAQ. With the exception of some light edits by Werner and about three sentences from A.M. Kuchling, the entire thing is my work. > Any chance you could put those in EPUB and other formats? I'm not the manual maintainer; perhaps ask that person first. From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Fri Oct 13 16:05:52 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 09:05:52 -0500 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: On 12/10/17 17:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a linguistic >> construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact that it is >> incorrect. > > It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, where > there's an actual institution charged with the development of the > language, the *only* definition of correctness in English is found in > whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive. Since you are talking about the definition of the English language, and noticed that there is no official definition, then I contend that there is no _definition_ of the English language at all. However, from this does not follow that one individual or a majority are allowed to dispense of any rules and do as they please while claiming that they are speaking English. Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining which words one will regard as legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to the ad populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding the words ?u?, ?gotta? and ?wanna? as valid synonyms of ?you?, ?got to? and ?want to?. In the case of the word ?Linux?, my argument is that this word was introduced (at least in informatics) for a specific use: To refer to a kernel. For an operating system based on Linux, the phrase ?Linux-based OS? is already accurate and unambiguous, and for one that includes GNU, ?GNU/Linux? is. Thus it is not necessity, but plain sloppiness what explains it use as something else. Hence that I hold that any other use should be rejected as illegitimate, in analogy with the sloppiness behind the aforementioned aberrations (?u? for ?you?, et cetera). As a point of contrast: in the case of mathematics, it is necessary to either coin entirely new words or use a pre-existing words with new meanings. However, in this case it is justified because coining a new words for each concept would require possible hundreds of words specific to mathematics. The consequences are bad on all sides: First this abundance of words would be hard to remember. Second, mathematicians would hardly agree on a single new word for each concept leading to diverging terminology. Third, the abundance of strange words would contribute to the perception of mathematics by the general public as an intimidating and incomprehensible subject. In short: Your argument "_many_ people use ?Linux? to refer to any Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English? is a big mistake. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From guru at unixarea.de Fri Oct 13 16:14:23 2017 From: guru at unixarea.de (Matthias Apitz) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 16:14:23 +0200 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> El d?a viernes, octubre 13, 2017 a las 09:05:52a. m. -0500, Mario Castel?n Castro escribi?: > Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. The > possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body or > defined by majority usage are not exhaustive. > > ... Could you please discuss this off-list. Thanks. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ? guru at unixarea.de, ? http://www.unixarea.de/ ? +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub 8. Mai 1945: Wer nicht feiert hat den Krieg verloren. 8 de mayo de 1945: Quien no festeja perdi? la Guerra. May 8, 1945: Who does not celebrate lost the War. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From duane at nofroth.com Fri Oct 13 16:30:42 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:30:42 -0300 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <033a8046-a5d2-a3b8-fb14-df19f2011df3@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-13 11:05 AM, Mario Castel?n Castro wrote: > On 12/10/17 17:50, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >>> The observation that one, some, many, or all people use a >>> linguistic construct in an incorrect way do not change the fact >>> that it is incorrect. >> >> It quite definitely does. Unlike, say, French or Icelandic, >> where there's an actual institution charged with the development >> of the language, the *only* definition of correctness in English >> is found in whether it conforms to everyday usage in the >> community in question. > > Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. > The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body > or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive. > I'd be interested to know what the other possibilities are. > Since you are talking about the definition of the English language, > and noticed that there is no official definition, then I contend > that there is no _definition_ of the English language at all. > However, from this does not follow that one individual or a > majority are allowed to dispense of any rules and do as they please > while claiming that they are speaking English. I think that if one individual tried they would initially meet with resistance. But over time language rules, both grammar and vocabulary, change. Even in a time as short as 30 years many changes have occurred in the English language. It is a dynamic language. "Resistance is futile" :-) Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of > English and use common sense in determining which words one will > regard as legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to > the ad populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding > the words ?u?, ?gotta? and ?wanna? as valid synonyms of ?you?, ?got > to? and ?want to?. > What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying and its acceptability depends on the audience. > > In short: Your argument "_many_ people use ?Linux? to refer to any > Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English? is a > big mistake. > I think it depends on the audience :-) > > > _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing > list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ4M4OAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkIesIAI2+EwHt+dXPF34ed6WZXO+S J3j5tWxC/Fy/TvHg9bQKzlcXH0uEJ1DjoCTNw3WhdgdiCHGWmP6Y/LZ+DYIq0AW5 X4BL+5jeMW/8vX+AyRSWqDIgME6rCF5L21xE6Byz0Sj8fdgxnwFslYb9Gs6cH14h qHyWxyNYKUe3eWH6JEuUgkduJqAAZX0jtAwMoNBRML7ameCwsELlbNc4bMGwqFL3 NGGBCJBxvxYsIhDO5Vk1ifBGgKB0EqURHruRykWrFEZFaOOUpD5RX8toZla/yllM uhtfTfsrdL4s6Cf7XOfM3MnSCPM98WwfKuWtU2Fc74D+bLxBup1upyZWcqVNJgo= =B/ek -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From duane at nofroth.com Fri Oct 13 16:57:18 2017 From: duane at nofroth.com (Duane Whitty) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:57:18 -0300 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> Message-ID: <52cc8ac3-468d-5d8a-4f12-2e1e6d0eaec8@nofroth.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 17-10-11 12:55 AM, Robert J. Hansen wrote: >> Amazing how much people want to comment on the color of this >> particular bikeshed! > > I agree. Bikeshedding frustrates me: I'll leave it at that. > Yes, but surely, given the question you must have seen this one coming :-D Best Regards, Duane - -- Duane Whitty duane at nofroth.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJZ4NRIAAoJEOJfpr8UVxtkKKoIAIOXzc5A4JePwqGmYE3q68XM WaQpSw09UM6aphbFBdsocGVZ7fuCXojKTtp0Aers1LgqQX16v0KbQwDf51YjZges 2MPrK0ZkPSQC9OeIzuAyoc8GWpHRsGhZ9ZyxSjsEDWEK6hhApkyKawwwsGXk1/gp APSfRMaFhu104gf9l8gPx9Pl3Jt6UPLhmVCnWUGBhW2nnMsIXsf/JQmSzO5dQDXU OqmI3lHENMsba6c8mD6t8D0kNzkRHc/De67vv7hpSXv21UcYdBr6pKJQM8rPL08q dNxX1nbivcIgsOnDambY0MuIS2OJm0BZrm1Nfp/ExvXz7sBNJeRuijAOkM7wgK4= =fEvT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From marioxcc.MT at yandex.com Fri Oct 13 17:02:40 2017 From: marioxcc.MT at yandex.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Mario_Castel=c3=a1n_Castro?=) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 10:02:40 -0500 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <033a8046-a5d2-a3b8-fb14-df19f2011df3@nofroth.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <033a8046-a5d2-a3b8-fb14-df19f2011df3@nofroth.com> Message-ID: <30a245d4-09bc-7af8-ad59-db6ffb6e2f6e@yandex.com> On 13/10/17 09:30, Duane Whitty wrote: >> Your argument is unsound, because the inference is unjustified. >> The possibilities that a language is regulated by an official body >> or defined by majority usage are not exhaustive. > > I'd be interested to know what the other possibilities are. I mentioned another possibility in my previous message: ?one must apply well-known rules of English and use common sense in determining words one will regard as legitimate?. The whole of my previous message is an elaboration of this. > I think that if one individual tried [?] You are referring to an hypothetical individual who develops a language reform. But that is not the case here. Here (the discussion is or was around the word ?Linux?) we simply have a misuse of a word which is not part of a proposal of a language reform and has no rationale. Since these cases are very different, the reasoning for one case does not necessarily applies to the other case. In the case of misuse of the word ?Linux?, I have already given my arguments. In the very different case of a well-made language reform, I would immediately regard it a a legitimate variant of English. However, it would be _inappropriate_ (not _incorrect_) to use it when it would cause significant confusion or be an obstacle to communication. > What about the role of media and its influence on popular culture? If > I say "C'mon, you gotta be kiddin me" everybody knows what I'm saying > and its acceptability depends on the audience. ?Popular culture? is not a good source of what is correct, precisely because of aberrations like this. Many things that are socially acceptable are factually or morally incorrect. These concepts should not be conflated. -- Do not eat animals; respect them as you respect people. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+to+(become+OR+eat)+vegan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 228 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 13 17:12:10 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:12:10 -0400 Subject: OT: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> Message-ID: <46e3fd09-cba1-cb56-09fb-d007a5952202@sixdemonbag.org> > However, from this does not follow that one individual or a majority > are allowed to dispense of any rules and do as they please while > claiming that they are speaking English. Sure it does. Chaucer, Joyce, Shakespeare. We even have special grammatical terms for when the author decided to say "to hell with it". English is a strict subject-verb-object (SVO) language: screw that up and you sound like Yoda... or Shakespeare. "Bloody thou art; bloody will be thy end." (_Richard III_) Inverting word order is called hyperbaton. Sentence fragments are bad, right? Meet anapodoton. Repetition is bad. Well, except if you're Churchill, in which case epizeuxis is your friend. "Never give in -- never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy." English is chock full of special rules that tells speakers how we ought break the rules. It's beautiful. :) > Instead, one must apply the well-known rules of English and use > common sense in determining which words one will regard as > legitimate. Leaving this judgment to majority amounts to the ad > populum fallacy and to such blatant absurdities as regarding the > words ?u?, ?gotta? and ?wanna? as valid synonyms of ?you?, ?got to? > and ?want to?. Perfectly valid depending on the community and the dialect. When I go visit my Southern relatives I don't talk about dragonflies, I talk about snake doctors. I don't say "the sun went down," I say "the sun's gone done." It's called code-switching, the ability to shift between different dialects, vocabularies, and grammatical rules. I get that you're a linguistic prescriptivist. But English -- especially American English -- isn't. > In the case of the word ?Linux?, my argument is that this word was > introduced (at least in informatics) for a specific use: To refer to > a kernel. Sure. And "cheater" was originally introduced to refer to an employee of the Crown charged with administering real estate. But that's not what it means any more, and that's not what Linux means any more, either. > Thus it is not necessity, but plain sloppiness what explains it use > as something else. Sure. English is a sloppy language; that's what makes it so awesome. Embrace the mutability. Set yourself free. :) > In short: Your argument "_many_ people use ?Linux? to refer to any > Linux-based operating system, therefore it is correct English? is a > big mistake. I continue to be amused by your tendency to think the English language has to respect the fragility of your linguistic beliefs. :) From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 13 17:26:07 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 11:26:07 -0400 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: <52cc8ac3-468d-5d8a-4f12-2e1e6d0eaec8@nofroth.com> References: <87mv4zp2mw.fsf@gnu.org> <87y3ojhrz6.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <9a896c0e-04da-268c-a4bf-0ffc10b2c5e1@gaspard.io> <87bmlej204.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <52cc8ac3-468d-5d8a-4f12-2e1e6d0eaec8@nofroth.com> Message-ID: > Yes, but surely, given the question you must have seen this one > coming :-D I consider the current amusement I'm receiving small payment for my having to read every last %$^$#@! message in the bikeshedding. But, as it's been requested to take it off-list -- and it *is* pretty off-topic -- I think it's only genteel to do so. And what a shame: I was looking forward to showing examples of iambic pentameter that were neither iambic, nor pentameter. :) From youcanlinux at gmail.com Fri Oct 13 18:44:01 2017 From: youcanlinux at gmail.com (Daniel Villarreal) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 12:44:01 -0400 Subject: 20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone In-Reply-To: <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <2f71640c-464d-a217-c84c-d93aaad8ab38@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 re: https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone.h tml Matthias, I appreciate your doing this tutorial. You put a lot of effort into it. I'm wanting to make some suggestions. Please forgive me if I'm misunderstanding anything. Cheers, Daniel Villarreal The device root file system is for good reason mounted read-only. I.e. one can not just install any other piece of software into it. could perhaps be... The device root file system is mounted read-only for good reason, i.e. one can not just install any other software in it. The way used here is an additional Linux system inside the phones system and chroot-ing into it for the to be installed software, and later calling the software from outside the chroot'ed file system. could be perhaps... The method used here is an additional Linux system inside the phone's system and chrooting into it to install this software, and later calling the software from outside the chrooted file system. The second occurrence of phablet should not be formatted. I have created there an additional directory /home/phablet/myRoot and below this untar'ed a complete Debian based Linux. How to do this is described in a small Gitbook about the BQ E4.5. could be perhaps... I have created there an additional directory /home/phablet/myRoot and below this untarred a complete Debian based Linux. How to do this is described in this article, i.e. Gitbook about the BQ E4.5. In the following text as naming convention the shell prompt $ means, we are in the phones file system and something like root at ubuntu-phablet:/# or phablet at ubuntu-phablet:~$ means, we are in the chroot'ed file system, best to understand with these commands: could be perhaps... The shell prompt "$" indicates that we are in the phone's file system. Conversely, something similar to "root at ubuntu-phablet:/#" or "phablet at ubuntu-phablet:~$" indicates that we are in the phone's chrooted file system. To illustrate: pass is a small password-storage manager which we will later use for our GnuPG encrypted tree of password, for example for websites or any other purpose, bank account PIN, ? could be perhaps... Pass is a small password-storage manager, which we will use for our GnuPG encrypted tree of password, e.g., for websites or any other purpose, bank account PIN ... Now in the phone system we configure for GnuPG the following config files: could be perhaps... Now in the phone system we configure the following config files for GnuPG: Due to the nature of the installation in the chroot'ed system we need small wrapper scripts to set PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, ? and other stuff; could be perhaps... Due to the nature of the installation in the chrooted system, we need small wrapper scripts to set PATH, LD_LIBRARY_PATH, etc.; run and create for test a key pair (later we want to use the OpenPGP card key pair for instead of this) could be perhaps... run and create a key pair to test (later we'll use the OpenPGP card key pair instead) Now we can use the 'pass' command we installed in the chroot'es system with could be perhaps... Now we can use the 'pass' command we installed in the chrooted system with Question: Why is there an asterisk after the prompt at the end of pass.sh ? Init the pass storage as: could be perhaps... Initialize the pass storage as: Insert some password for test: could be perhaps... Insert a random password to test: Final step is getting support for the OpenPGP card. We need the 'pcscd' daemon. Its build is a bit tricky because it must later, on start from outside the chroot'ed syste, find the ccid driver. could be perhaps... Final step is getting support for the OpenPGP card. We need the pcscd daemon. Its build is a bit tricky because it must later find the ccid driver, upon commencing from outside of the chrooted system. We compile the following pieces inside the chroot'ed system: could be perhaps... We compile the following components inside the chrooted system: ok, now the 'ccid' driver, installed (copied) to be seen by the daemon: could be perhaps... Now install the ccid driver: the driver libccid.so and its control file Info.plist ended up as configured in: could be perhaps... The libccid.so driver and its control file Info.plist are configured in: Now we start in the phone the pcscd daemon as: could be perhaps... Now we start the pcscd daemon as: Now we removed /home/phablet/.gnupg (saving the *.conf files) and copied over from my real netbook the /.password-store and the key material for the OpenPGP card; let's see if 'pass' can unlock the card (via the gpg-agent) and decipher the crypted information (uncrypted shown here as XXXXXXXX-XXXXXX). The gpg-agent will first ask for the card to be inserted and then for its PIN. could be perhaps... I removed /home/phablet/.gnupg (after saving the *.conf files) and copied over from my real netbook the /.password-store and the key material for the OpenPGP card; let's see if 'pass' can unlock the card (via the gpg-agent) and decipher the encrypted information (unencrypted shown here as XXXXXXXX-XXXXXX). The gpg-agent will first ask for the card to be inserted, and then for its PIN. - -- Daniel Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEL24Nw4XiXsDaAz9b8lGJOKg+e0kFAlng7UsACgkQ8lGJOKg+ e0n/sggAlGkF/VLxvYrZrT1Kfr7a9jyOZilUO06rfiQN5CF8fVZxkPuSkm38UtMA uF5IvzMTyXj61/BCOpOrZn3lL4C9npYbzHLBel3TIbI8fV1FoHpwpC61wZVQSJ9P O3k+qls0aAJyn+YhXJ5UfxgaIm4AFgcQrKp9rljk4s3y6xyu5abcE7uqh0pttMMU ZQQ9j4RpUSodFJg/bC8LsjlIVWt3dFoN7hEjwuTaPiAFrOo+njpcXNSwOdOqL0vh 2I6dO2BHyG+2acYNTjXZl1m7B6NVcZuHgycwV5Zaf3oNQ4HP+C/M0bMbkyKP3yAa 0YZGDggLMWW+SbrAZ5SEAmMKeXwHHA== =6L1y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From guru at unixarea.de Fri Oct 13 20:17:16 2017 From: guru at unixarea.de (Matthias Apitz) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:17:16 +0200 Subject: 20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone In-Reply-To: <2f71640c-464d-a217-c84c-d93aaad8ab38@gmail.com> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> <2f71640c-464d-a217-c84c-d93aaad8ab38@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20171013181716.GA2417@c720-r314251> El d?a viernes, octubre 13, 2017 a las 12:44:01p. m. -0400, Daniel Villarreal escribi?: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > re: > https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone.h > tml > > Matthias, I appreciate your doing this tutorial. You put a lot of > effort into it. I'm wanting to make some suggestions. Please forgive > me if I'm misunderstanding anything. > > Cheers, > Daniel Villarreal Daniel, Thanks for your comments and the suggested changes. I can't change the blog page due to missing write access there. The suggested changes are fine with me if someone is in the position to do them. Re/ your question: > Now we can use the 'pass' command we installed in the chroot'es system > with > > could be perhaps... > > Now we can use the 'pass' command we installed in the chrooted system > with > > Question: Why is there an asterisk after the prompt at the end of > pass.sh ? The '$' sign there is not a prompt. 'pass.sh' is a small shell script and in this the expression '$*' passes all arguments given to 'pass.sh' to the called command. matthias -- Matthias Apitz, ? guru at unixarea.de, ? http://www.unixarea.de/ ? +49-176-38902045 Public GnuPG key: http://www.unixarea.de/key.pub -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Sat Oct 14 12:11:05 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:11:05 +0200 Subject: 20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone In-Reply-To: <20171013181716.GA2417@c720-r314251> (Matthias Apitz's message of "Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:17:16 +0200") References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> <2f71640c-464d-a217-c84c-d93aaad8ab38@gmail.com> <20171013181716.GA2417@c720-r314251> Message-ID: <87infiyr7q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:17, guru at unixarea.de said: > Thanks for your comments and the suggested changes. I can't change the > blog page due to missing write access there. The suggested changes are If you wish, send we a git diff and I will apply it. The link to the source is in the footer of the page or here [1]. Shalom-Salam, Werner [1] https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg-doc.git;a=blob_plain;f=misc/blog.gnupg.org/20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone.org -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 357 bytes Desc: not available URL: From youcanlinux at gmail.com Sat Oct 14 18:52:45 2017 From: youcanlinux at gmail.com (Daniel Villarreal) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2017 12:52:45 -0400 Subject: 20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone In-Reply-To: <87infiyr7q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010121345.A0FF4201D1@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <20171010160459.5188F20202@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <66079a00-6509-7d7c-41e7-7c0dfe889b11@yandex.com> <20171012154522.2032E1FA8B@orac.inputplus.co.uk> <91f8c935-ecd1-3737-9c7a-117a6a910d23@yandex.com> <9ba91c7f-805a-fec4-304f-591c2e9072b1@sixdemonbag.org> <20171013141423.GA3226@c720-r314251> <2f71640c-464d-a217-c84c-d93aaad8ab38@gmail.com> <20171013181716.GA2417@c720-r314251> <87infiyr7q.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: Thank you. I'm sending a diff file in a separate email to you and Mr. Hansen. On 10/14/17 06:11, Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 13 Oct 2017 20:17, guru at unixarea.de said: > >> Thanks for your comments and the suggested changes. I can't >> change the blog page due to missing write access there. The >> suggested changes are > > If you wish, send we a git diff and I will apply it. The link to > the source is in the footer of the page or here [1]. > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner > > > [1] > https://git.gnupg.org/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=gnupg-doc.git;a=blob_plain;f=misc/blog.gnupg.org/20171005-gnupg-ccid-card-daemon-UbuntuPhone.org Sincerely, Daniel > Villarreal http://www.youcanlinux.org youcanlinux at gmail.com PGP key 2F6E 0DC3 85E2 5EC0 DA03 3F5B F251 8938 A83E 7B49 https://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF2518938A83E7B49 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 484 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From geniegate at yahoo.com Sun Oct 15 22:35:12 2017 From: geniegate at yahoo.com (Jamie H.) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 20:35:12 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Key Storage Abstraction? References: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637.ref@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637@mail.yahoo.com> Hello, I've been looking for a way to provide GNUPGP with a custom implementation of a key ring, as I gather there is such a thing as WKS, but I cannot find any documentation on how I can implement this myself. What I need from GPG is a tool that does this: 1.) Sign Messages with a private key (of my choosing) 2.) Encrypt messages with a public key (of my choosing) - ideally to multiple recipients. 3.) Verify a message was signed by whoever owns a public key I have. - I don't care about GPG's "Trust levels" and would like to disregard them. 4.) Decrypt messages using a private key that I specify. If things go the way I'd like, there may be several of these operations taking place in parallel. There may be thousands, or even millions of keys in my own database, I don't want to (and indeed, I would have to scrap the open source project) import anything into GPG's keyring. I don't particularly want to implement WKS, and if I did it would be read-only, I don't ever want PGP to "upload" anything or change the system in any way. The idea is, this application manages the keys (it needs to for other reasons not really related to GPG) So, I'm looking for a way to just feed GPG the keys it needs when it needs them. It'd be nice if I could just give it a shell script that takes an argument (whatever key it's looking for) and GPG reads the key on its standard input, but that doesn't seem possible. Any ideas? and any pointers on where I might look if I had to implement a subset of WKS? Unrelated: This is in python, I see some GPG libraries, they all seem overly complicated, I'd like to actually access GPG *as* a library, but all the tools I see seem to invoke GPG as a program and then operate on its standard output. Is there a recommended python library that, perhaps, uses GPG in a way that's more efficient? Maybe as a server mode or something? (I'd like it if there were capable of processing, mostly "verify", dozens of messages pr. second, ideally) Thanks! Jamie From vedaal at nym.hush.com Sun Oct 15 23:55:46 2017 From: vedaal at nym.hush.com (vedaal at nym.hush.com) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2017 17:55:46 -0400 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <20171015215546.7188E40101@smtp.hushmail.com> On 10/12/2017 at 3:18 AM, "Werner Koch" wrote: -Yes, you should get 1.7. And while you are already at it, you better -also update to gpg 2.2.1. There are just too many fixes and changes we -did since January 2016. ===== OK, did this, and downloaded all of the dependent libraries to ./configure gnupg-2.2.1 all went well until trying to 'make' ntbtls Here is what happened : =====[begin quoted output]===== NTBTLS v0.1.2 has been configured as follows: Revision: a68e81e (42638) Platform: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu londo at londo-earth-trinket:~/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2$ make make all-recursive make[1]: Entering directory '/home/londo/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2' Making all in src make[2]: Entering directory '/home/londo/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2/src' /bin/bash ../libtool --tag=CC --mode=compile gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -fvisibility=hidden -Wall -Wno-pointer-sign -Wpointer-arith -MT visibility.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/visibility.Tpo -c -o visibility.lo visibility.c libtool: compile: gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/local/include -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -fvisibility=hidden -Wall -Wno-pointer-sign -Wpointer-arith -MT visibility.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/visibility.Tpo -c visibility.c -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/visibility.o In file included from ntbtls-int.h:251:0, from visibility.h:24, from visibility.c:24: context.h:24:18: fatal error: zlib.h: No such file or directory compilation terminated. Makefile:593: recipe for target 'visibility.lo' failed make[2]: *** [visibility.lo] Error 1 make[2]: Leaving directory '/home/londo/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2/src' Makefile:456: recipe for target 'all-recursive' failed make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1 make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/londo/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2' Makefile:387: recipe for target 'all' failed make: *** [all] Error 2 londo at londo-earth-trinket:~/gnupg-2.2.1/ntbtls-0.1.2$ =====[end quoted output]===== Should I try ntbtls 0.1.1 or an even earlier version? TIA vedaal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From listofactor at mail.ru Mon Oct 16 08:09:59 2017 From: listofactor at mail.ru (listo factor) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 06:09:59 +0000 Subject: Key Storage Abstraction? In-Reply-To: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637@mail.yahoo.com> References: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1765305844.319694.1508099712637@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 10/15/2017 08:35 PM, Jamie H. via Gnupg-users wrote: > ...I'd like to actually access GPG*as* a library, but all the tools I see seem to invoke GPG as a program and then operate on its standard output... What you need is GPG as a pure crypto-engine; completely divorced from all key management and user interface functionality, so that both of these tasks can be performed by applications that are tailored to meet specific user population operational requirements. This ("GPG crypto-engine" ?) would be a software package of significant general utility. In addition to the requirements you outlined, I would add one more: it should abandon all attempts to protect the secrets (private key or plaintext) from other users and processes running on the computer on which it is running, and it should sacrifice the execution efficiency whenever it significantly impacts the code. This would reduce the complexity of the code, so that it could be more easily audited and made platform independent. Ideally, it would be a BSD or similarly licensed, so that it could be included in source form into applications such as yours. From wk at gnupg.org Mon Oct 16 09:18:10 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2017 09:18:10 +0200 Subject: Key Storage Abstraction? In-Reply-To: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637@mail.yahoo.com> (Jamie H. via Gnupg-users's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2017 20:35:12 +0000 (UTC)") References: <1765305844.319694.1508099712637.ref@mail.yahoo.com> <1765305844.319694.1508099712637@mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <871sm3y30t.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Hello! On Sun, 15 Oct 2017 22:35, gnupg-users at gnupg.org said: > I've been looking for a way to provide GNUPGP with a custom I assume you mean GnuPG. > implementation of a key ring, as I gather there is such a thing as > WKS, but I cannot find any documentation on how I can implement this The Web Key Directory is a way to discovery a key belonging to a mail address. It is not a local ley storage or interface format. > 1.) Sign Messages with a private key (of my choosing) $ gpg --batch -u YOURKEYID .... > 2.) Encrypt messages with a public key (of my choosing) > - ideally to multiple recipients. $ gpg --batch -e -f KEYFILE1 -f KEYFILE2 .... Note that the option -f is not yet supported by GPGME. > 3.) Verify a message was signed by whoever owns a public key I have. > - I don't care about GPG's "Trust levels" and would like to disregard them. $ gpgv --keyring TRUSTEDKEYS FILETOVERIFY > 4.) Decrypt messages using a private key that I specify. For what do you need this? The OpenPGP format specifies the key required for decryption. Hidden recipients? > Unrelated: This is in python, I see some GPG libraries, they all seem > overly complicated, I'd like to actually access GPG *as* a library, Use gpgme which has a maintained Python binding. GnuPG is made up of several components which uses the process barrier to separate tasks. In case you really have overhead problems invoking gpg it is possible to modify gpg and gpgme to run gpg as a co-process (we already use gpgsm this way). Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 357 bytes Desc: not available URL: From 2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-groups at riseup.net Tue Oct 17 20:57:26 2017 From: 2017-r3sgs86x8e-lists-groups at riseup.net (MFPA) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100 Subject: FAQ and GNU In-Reply-To: References: <87h8v7jz7h.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> <28f2e9e9-38fa-05fe-b801-a8c5a4750dd6@sixdemonbag.org> <83c9de5c-a3d6-3bb5-96ac-dc23a740ebd3@yandex.com> <748750259.20171012235845@riseup.net> Message-ID: <1962590879.20171017195726@riseup.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On Friday 13 October 2017 at 2:27:34 PM, in , Mario Castel?n Castro wrote:- > On 12/10/17 17:58, MFPA wrote: >>> Would it be >>> correct to refer to >>> a car as an ?engine?, because it includes an engine? >> It is usual in and around London to call a car a >> "motor". > Alright. >> Calling it an "engine" seems no more or no less >> correct. > But one can not conclude that it is correct just > because it is common. Yes one can: as Rob pointed out, the definition of correctness in English is whether it conforms to everyday usage in the community in question. - -- Best regards MFPA Pain is inevitable, but misery is optional. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iNUEARYKAH0WIQSWDIYo1ZL/jN6LsL/g4t7h1sju+gUCWeZSnV8UgAAAAAAuAChp c3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVucGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0OTYw Qzg2MjhENTkyRkY4Q0RFOEJCMEJGRTBFMkRFRTFENkM4RUVGQQAKCRDg4t7h1sju +qjKAQDPCxMyAa9CiJd+7pElrIKqtVL/bSIH8H8uwWaYbU0YUQEAxEts7B2fL6rq NpAYG68Ikaof70qgPDHbtvpSJsSbGQeJApMEAQEKAH0WIQRSX6konxd5jbM7JygT DfUWES/A/wUCWeZSnV8UgAAAAAAuAChpc3N1ZXItZnByQG5vdGF0aW9ucy5vcGVu cGdwLmZpZnRoaG9yc2VtYW4ubmV0NTI1RkE5Mjg5RjE3Nzk4REIzM0IyNzI4MTMw REY1MTYxMTJGQzBGRgAKCRATDfUWES/A/9IKD/9aM+uX9/tqoSlorhPiOmw/NorM CHKvqSqkPqLiHqrNWe9IuVFjnTmCYqFwSXAgFzB5rpjHBBc5F/IYtCS94Ubzi+cU eOJvNmLHPZjCr7DQNsDbkpPtqMfvJn99EYZH4d4Q2DF6/JTK6ZbpAM1NNAEo5+GS 3c2vfeiEl56/ESf2jja3ASHvaicUsVsCBErPCNkvEGDzkJOaFubRTTSCYr20TZJ1 MGmSLzfjZdV6uA0ikY6hl6s5tuVt3g8MUMbjgFQ30laLaj6Urk+FO6Mwc5k00pbM JhiWoPriQq5m6o9deVwa3oKi7CjTMOMALi1zrJllK2sFlwwZ9bjt5zwy7pXxrUOU iGHlHSfX6rC++KGZnVGQNj19gGbsMfu/cpSzsa1gu9vtFmHevKcs1DsTop60BxNH pB0yuVCYlWMKelUTBVX628zjD9y3S2eMd4jXD5Kh7FFeD2kdY/nNdF/TGxEgkQqi lClFWlRTcYSBV4xhdJ91B4TQCZRCRo6vmqjirVXtGrRmrilgcNRfx8WXv6pZH7Fn WB50CD9JJ7Li6dqm/rKiz53ovNBvQb4oHGBV3AkWFOxktOMCKBKc5GkeWltEDMSE h1uYniEf+WrpGPdKrFLusT5EaUfoSRTdJPKRsTcVMatIZgsP9De38bhgan9E1Xmb gdchOR0yCEw8LeNAhw== =ziCQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From szczepan at nitrokey.com Tue Oct 17 21:24:22 2017 From: szczepan at nitrokey.com (Szczepan Zalega | Nitrokey) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:24:22 +0200 Subject: Generating a new keypair through GnuPG 2.x in Ubuntu 16.0.4 In-Reply-To: <20171015215546.7188E40101@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20171010182643.2E03EE05FF@smtp.hushmail.com> <87o9pejiy8.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171011185644.4548040143@smtp.hushmail.com> <87wp40g7or.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20171015215546.7188E40101@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: <51876c43-e8ae-a96b-8523-ca2e5f5bb778@nitrokey.com> On 10/15/2017 11:55 PM, vedaal at nym.hush.com wrote: > OK, > did this, and downloaded all of the dependent libraries to ./configure?? > gnupg-2.2.1 > (...) > libtool: compile:? gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I/usr/local/include > -I/usr/local/include -g -O2 -fvisibility=hidden -Wall -Wno-pointer-sign > -Wpointer-arith -MT visibility.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/visibility.Tpo -c > visibility.c? -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/visibility.o > In file included from ntbtls-int.h:251:0, > ???????????????? from visibility.h:24, > ???????????????? from visibility.c:24: > context.h:24:18: fatal error: zlib.h: No such file or directory Hi! Apparently you do not have zlib's headers. apt-file says you can find them on Ubuntu in package: zlib1g-dev (/usr/include/zlib.h). -- Best regards, Szczepan From wipro134 at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 22:15:18 2017 From: wipro134 at gmail.com (wipro) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2017 22:15:18 +0200 Subject: gpg-agent problem ERR 67108949 No Pinentry Message-ID: <2a2d254c-0156-0a60-e97f-a76b9e2f20b6@gmail.com> Hi, I am using Thunderbird & enigmail (1.9.3) on a Linux Mint 17.3 system. I want gpg-agent to store the passphrases of my keys but I am stuck now after going through all the enigmail debug advice and exhausting the knowledge available on the enigmail forum. My environment: - Linux Mint 17.3 KDE - gpg2 and gpg-agent version 2.0.22 - Kgpg and gpa frontends - Thunderbird 52.4.0, enigmail 1.9.3 The gpg-agent ist started from /usr/share/upstart/sessions/gpg-agent.conf at login I have "use-agent" in my ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf. I have "pinentry-program /usr/bin/pinentry" in my ~/.gnupg/gpg-agent.conf Still enigmail is throwing an error, that pinenrty could not be opened and in the attached log file gpg-agent_autostart-17102017_NOK.log there is three times this "ERR 67108949 No Pinentry". Now the strange part: If I start gpg-agent manually from a terminal everything works fine: decrypting an email is possible and the gpg-agent log confirms that (see attached log file gpg-agent_manual_OK.log). commands in a terminal: killall gpg-agent gpg-agent --debug-level expert --use-standard-socket --daemon /bin/sh Any ideas what could be wrong in the gpg setup? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gpg-agent_autostart-17102017_NOK.log Type: text/x-log Size: 12854 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: gpg-agent_manual_OK.log Type: text/x-log Size: 3042 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tim.smy at gmx.net Sat Oct 21 17:47:01 2017 From: tim.smy at gmx.net (xstation) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 08:47:01 -0700 (MST) Subject: : Bad session key Message-ID: <1508600821469-0.post@n7.nabble.com> on linux 17.3 rosa having problems decypting encrypted with gpg 1.4.11 how have installed from source amma at amma-Aspire-F5-571 ~ $ gpg2 --help gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.22 libgcrypt 1.5.3 Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law . aldo gunpg2 was installed from the apt-get install package amma at amma-Aspire-F5-571 ~/Desktop $ gpg2 -d mtogo.zip.gpg gpg: CAST5 encrypted data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase gpg: DBG: cleared passphrase cached with ID: S8E43B9269CCD3E30 gpg: decryption failed: Bad session key if i use amma at amma-Aspire-F5-571 ~/Desktop $ gpg -d mtogo.zip.gpg gpg: CAST5 encrypted data gpg: encrypted with 1 passphrase gpg: decryption failed: Bad session key same thing but I notice for about 2 minutes my cpu goes up to 76% while gpg is running then stops -- Sent from: http://gnupg.10057.n7.nabble.com/GnuPG-User-f3.html From felix.klee at inka.de Sat Oct 21 17:38:36 2017 From: felix.klee at inka.de (Felix E. Klee) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 23:38:36 +0800 Subject: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing Message-ID: See the attached file. When I try to decrypt it using `gpg -d`, I get: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing `gpg --version` (on Windows): gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.1 libgcrypt 1.8.1 Copyright (C) 2017 Free Software Foundation, Inc. License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it. There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law. Home: C:/Users/Felix/AppData/Roaming/gnupg Supported algorithms: Pubkey: RSA, ELG, DSA, ECDH, ECDSA, EDDSA Cipher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH, CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256 Hash: SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2 IIRC I haven?t updated gpg since I encrypted the file. So I assume that the same gpg 2.2.1 has been used for encryption. The private key is on an OpenPGP smartcard by ZeitControl. *Any idea how to fix the issue?* -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: password.gpg Type: application/octet-stream Size: 528 bytes Desc: not available URL: From vedaal at nym.hush.com Sun Oct 22 06:06:32 2017 From: vedaal at nym.hush.com (vedaal at nym.hush.com) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 00:06:32 -0400 Subject: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20171022040632.B114D20131@smtp.hushmail.com> On 10/21/2017 at 1:14 PM, "Felix E. Klee" wrote:See the attached file. When I try to decrypt it using `gpg -d`, I get: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing ===== gnupg mailing list automatically scrubs attachments. please list the encrypted text as part of the inline message. Thanks, vedaal -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From felix.klee at inka.de Sun Oct 22 06:10:54 2017 From: felix.klee at inka.de (Felix E. Klee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 12:10:54 +0800 Subject: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing In-Reply-To: <20171022040632.B114D20131@smtp.hushmail.com> References: <20171022040632.B114D20131@smtp.hushmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 12:06 PM, wrote: > please list the encrypted text as part of the inline message. Thanks for pointing that out. Here you go: -----BEGIN PGP ARMORED FILE----- Comment: Use "gpg --dearmor" for unpacking hQIMAwT9940Wed2UAQ//X3XcOwKvauUCfRI0tqWBrf4CUs/HnzJgaLgL3snxCd0T cYr78WQvrwUBAJEwvakjuTsrBC7CdxJHWmaEYQZrw8dIAMdxDoKGaWti9S0cGrZD CjaUjZypCM7bmJViUUmy7nBgrkThQGzS5fqT9EelJ/loJZViIm8kqtV3BGknkyrX GF92v6CKhh6VDZE4p4trePV46l2Dw4zdB3CPsEc06HREOdGN1RZssMKpQCxnbk44 AskDJS/AOG0xnvgLny96j38xdCz+F9KQ8dA9UZCRau6qTYaOtjvhLIHW1eWjNNtD Eay54IkFbdF4bReS3fSPp4pv3w2SZLPyX+WX8w5lmRyv7+CsSPzP2spD2KunSsiA 0+1Tw/Lr2Rvwbb+j1cgcr4+IcpPGddn4un+KS42HpxWfZfM7bqoetNO6lL0n2EHI 2W3brKf/9HWeR0vj9LQlDQJGPhejvm6Jgmv/QVYlAEqkkdQurA8UZ3t6v2aQwdgO smHUfnCVj/CZd3qU5rlvWq2N/vjxIra1VVbFLpC6FU6ISaxBn8D6wBQ4IJmKXTMn b/hGQtd8paHeUXIyg48f1abGsaa1/bvQ8ReZjVpAkEFCaQeSovf67krSCYNdeJ/+ YY9QHly/kj0JGqcNtFhBEAJxmh05bGkTmYKauiMF4iLa5fQj639oW6TsiXB5wi3S =UO5M -----END PGP ARMORED FILE----- From wk at gnupg.org Sun Oct 22 13:18:02 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:18:02 +0200 Subject: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing In-Reply-To: (Felix E. Klee's message of "Sat, 21 Oct 2017 23:38:36 +0800") References: Message-ID: <87shebfn2t.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Sat, 21 Oct 2017 17:38, felix.klee at inka.de said: > See the attached file. When I try to decrypt it using `gpg -d`, I get: > > gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing The data is corrupted. It consists of a probably corrected public key encrypted packet (with the encrypted session key) followed by a single byte 0xD2 which indicates the encrypted data packet. However this is the last byte of the data and the length bytes as well as as the header of the encrypted data packet is missing. I can't tell why this message was truncated. Its truncated length is 512 + 16. I hope you have a backup. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From felix.klee at inka.de Sun Oct 22 17:11:16 2017 From: felix.klee at inka.de (Felix E. Klee) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2017 23:11:16 +0800 Subject: gpg: [don't know]: 1st length byte missing In-Reply-To: <87shebfn2t.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87shebfn2t.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: Thanks, Werner! No backup, and I think there is no way to recover the password, which - in this case - is very unfortunate. :( I wonder how this happened. The drive is a Samsung EVO SSD with NTFS. From gniibe at fsij.org Tue Oct 24 08:15:08 2017 From: gniibe at fsij.org (NIIBE Yutaka) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 15:15:08 +0900 Subject: gpg-agent UI when waiting for smart card touch? In-Reply-To: <3f58eaa6-2fd3-d3c2-f483-4fbd7deee4da@mandelberg.org> References: <3f58eaa6-2fd3-d3c2-f483-4fbd7deee4da@mandelberg.org> Message-ID: <87inf5hy1f.fsf@iwagami.gniibe.org> David Mandelberg wrote: > I'm using gpg-agent with Yubikeys configured to require a physical touch > before performing operations. Is there any way to get gpg-agent to > display something on screen when it's waiting for me to touch the > Yubikey? (Otherwise, I sometimes don't realize it's waiting for > anything, and the operation times out.) Some change in the protocol is required to implement this feature. >From here, it's development thing. Please skip reading, if you don't need. Most easy change would be adding a new flag into Slot Status register in the CCID specification 1.1. See page 55 of the specification for the Table 6.2-3 Slot Status register. Say, using bit-2 as: waiting user interaction flag, when Time extension is required. With that flag, the device will be possible to notify scdaemon (then, gpg-agent) to pop up dialog. Since we already have a flag in the card feature (in OpenPGPcard specification v3), we can distinguish if a card supports this feature or not. That is just a idea. I'll try with Gnuk Token, perhaps. -- From sourcelime at mailbox.org Tue Oct 24 20:45:11 2017 From: sourcelime at mailbox.org (sourcelime at mailbox.org) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 20:45:11 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" Message-ID: <5c7eba93-3c0d-267a-46d6-2083aa6ed01d@mailbox.org> Hi, I generated keys on a Nitrokey and have chosen the option to make an off-card backup of the encryption key: gpg: NOTE: backup of card key saved to `/home/archi/.gnupg/sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg' as described in: https://gnupg.org/howtos/card-howto/en/smartcard-howto-single.html#id2506175 Now I tried to use this backup key. So I imported the public keys, and when I try to import the secret key backup file, I get an error "no user ID" and the key isn't imported to the secret ring: gpg2 --import sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg gpg: key 26D728A8F09033F1: no user ID gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: secret keys read: 1 I only found a hint so far that the key can be uploaded to another card with the bkuptocard command (https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-June/058438.html), but I had hoped that it is possible to use the backup key without a card. Any hints here, is this possible? Greetings, Ralf From sourcelime at mailbox.org Tue Oct 24 21:23:30 2017 From: sourcelime at mailbox.org (Ralf) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:23:30 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" Message-ID: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> Hi, I generated keys on a Nitrokey and have chosen the option to make an off-card backup of the encryption key: gpg: NOTE: backup of card key saved to `/home/archi/.gnupg/sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg' as described in: https://gnupg.org/howtos/card-howto/en/smartcard-howto-single.html#id2506175 Now I tried to use this backup key. So I imported the public keys, and when I try to import the secret key backup file, I get an error "no user ID" and the key isn't imported to the secret ring: gpg2 --import sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg gpg: key 26D728A8F09033F1: no user ID gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: secret keys read: 1 I only found a hint so far that the key can be uploaded to another card with the bkuptocard command (https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-June/058438.html), but I had hoped that it is possible to use the backup key without a card. Any hints here, is this possible? Greetings, Ralf From wk at gnupg.org Wed Oct 25 07:59:51 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 07:59:51 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> (Ralf's message of "Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:23:30 +0200") References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> Message-ID: <87o9ovaht4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Tue, 24 Oct 2017 21:23, sourcelime at mailbox.org said: > but I had hoped that it is possible to use the backup key without a > card. Any hints here, is this possible? There is no tool yet to do this. Let's track this at https://dev.gnupg.org/T3466 Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gniibe at fsij.org Wed Oct 25 09:03:22 2017 From: gniibe at fsij.org (NIIBE Yutaka) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:03:22 +0900 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> Message-ID: <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> Hello, Ralf wrote: > I generated keys on a Nitrokey and have chosen the option to make an > off-card backup of the encryption key: > > gpg: NOTE: backup of card key saved to > `/home/archi/.gnupg/sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg' If you want to know the detail, this means that the encryption key is generated on the host and it is imported to the card. Generating on card and extracting is not possible. > gpg2 --import sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg No. It doesn't work, because the file is just the raw private key of the encryption subkey. > I only found a hint so far that the key can be uploaded to another card > with the bkuptocard command > (https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2017-June/058438.html), > but Yes. It's "gpg --edit-key" which can be used for this file and it's "bkuptocard" sub command to import the private key to the card again. > I had hoped that it is possible to use the backup key without a > card. Any hints here, is this possible? In such a case, why not do that straight? I mean, generating keys on host and manually importing to device by "keytocard" of "--edit-key"? You can control your key better. The sk_26D728A8F09033F1.gpg is written in the OpenPGP format, but it is not intended to be used by "--import" command; Even if it is created by the data of subkey, the file uses PKT_SECRET_KEY type. So, to achieve what you want, I guess, you need to write a small program to handle this file to recover your private key on host. -- From laurent.lavaud at ladtech.fr Wed Oct 25 11:27:43 2017 From: laurent.lavaud at ladtech.fr (Laurent Lavaud) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:27:43 +0200 (CEST) Subject: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions Message-ID: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> Hello, I would like to know what is the correct way to get a gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between session ? I have some cronjob that must use a key stored in the agent. Actually the first time a gpg-agent is launch, it create a socket in /run/user/PID/gnupg/ but when i logout this folder is cleaned by systemd and then if i come back i can't reconnect to the running gpg-agent because the socket has disapear... This problem appears since i uprade to Ubuntu 17.10, it seems before systemd don't clean the /run/user/PID folder so the socket persist between session. I don't think it is an Ubuntu bug, it seems to be a normal behavior that systemd clean this folder so how i could get a persistent socket for my gpg-agent ? thanks in advance for your help. From sourcelime at mailbox.org Wed Oct 25 16:15:26 2017 From: sourcelime at mailbox.org (Ralf) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:15:26 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> Message-ID: <54b5ec9b-5141-cca6-45b3-f22f93beb656@mailbox.org> Hi, > If you want to know the detail, this means that the encryption key is > generated on the host and it is imported to the card. Generating on > card and extracting is not possible. I was wondering about that, because on of the reasons that convinced me to buy a Nitrokey was the "the key cannot leave the device" argument. So I wondered about the backup option, read up on it (because I am not very knowledgable of using GnuPG yet). I thought it makes sense to have a backup only of the encryption key and live with the risk of losing the signing / authorization key. Not sure what is worth how much, I was going with what the generate procedure suggested because it made sense to me intuitively and I assumed it represents time-proofed best practices. >> I had hoped that it is possible to use the backup key without a >> card. Any hints here, is this possible? > > In such a case, why not do that straight? I mean, generating keys on > host and manually importing to device by "keytocard" of "--edit-key"? > You can control your key better. Maybe that would have been better. I stumbled on that option, but the "generate" command option looked way more simple: https://www.gnupg.org/howtos/card-howto/en/ch03s03.html#id2521952 than this procedure recommended on the Nitrokey documentation: http://wiki.fsfe.org/TechDocs/CardHowtos/CardWithSubkeysUsingBackups The whole "master and different sub-keys" seemed somewhat complicated to me. I learned that the devil is in the details, sometimes even in little things. Like: the public key is not on the Nitrokey. You need to backup it to use the Nitrokey on another machine. So I went for the path that looked a lot more well-travelled and just a lot more simple. Or is there a simpler way to generate keys locally + upload them to the Nitrokey, backup the keyrings and remove the secret parts that I missed? > So, to achieve what you want, I guess, you need to write a small program > to handle this file to recover your private key on host. I was hoping for a simpler workaround to make GnuPG import the key. I was happy to hear that importing such a key will be tracked as a feature request. Until then, I'll either only use this for things I could afford to loose when I lose my Nitrokey. Or I'll take the time to generate new keys and re-crypt everything. Greetings, Ralf From sourcelime at mailbox.org Wed Oct 25 16:15:41 2017 From: sourcelime at mailbox.org (Ralf) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:15:41 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <87o9ovaht4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> <87o9ovaht4.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: > There is no tool yet to do this. Let's track this at > https://dev.gnupg.org/T3466 thanks, good to know I wasn't missing something obvious here. An option for "--import" sounds great, that was what I was looking for intuitively, something that would allow me to specify the user id / the hash of the public key. I am curious, from a user-perspective, couldn't GnuPG be trying to be very helpful with importing the secret key and "just do the right thing" and scan if there is a matching public key in the keyring? Greetings, Ralf From wk at gnupg.org Wed Oct 25 16:54:57 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 16:54:57 +0200 Subject: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions In-Reply-To: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> (Laurent Lavaud's message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:27:43 +0200 (CEST)") References: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> Message-ID: <87vaj38egu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Wed, 25 Oct 2017 11:27, laurent.lavaud at ladtech.fr said: > Actually the first time a gpg-agent is launch, it create a socket in /run/user/PID/gnupg/ but when i logout this folder is cleaned by systemd and then if i come back i can't reconnect to the running gpg-agent because the socket has disapear... It is a feature and not a bug. I would suggest to apt-get install sysvinit-core SCNR, Werner p.s. The gnupg tarballs has a file gnupg/doc/examples/systemd-user/gpg-agent.socket which is an example on how to specify the location of the socket. The problem might be that systemd likes to stop all services at user logout. -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From martini5468 at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 18:25:14 2017 From: martini5468 at gmail.com (martin) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 17:25:14 +0100 Subject: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions In-Reply-To: <87vaj38egu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> <87vaj38egu.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <5430a84a-c7e6-c9f3-b4ab-1c70d12f5416@gmail.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 25/10/17 15:54, Werner Koch wrote: > p.s. > The gnupg tarballs has a file > gnupg/doc/examples/systemd-user/gpg-agent.socket > which is an example on how to specify the location of the socket. The > problem might be that systemd likes to stop all services at user logout. Alternatively you can look into `KillUserProcesses` and `KillExcludeUsers` options for systemd-logind[1]. For some distributions `KillUserProcesses` defaults to yes which will clean up all background running processes.Changing that to no will leave processes lingering but can potentially cause other problems. Martin [1] - https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/logind.conf.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEXpvIcrLGPB3dYM2b2/3pjiVWvVwFAlnwuuIACgkQ2/3pjiVW vVzBhA//Z0F8mWp6z4ce9rFMi/9J0sm8u71/HZI4IIAOsZoaJgrOuJgs5ObVXLwk MH2H26gojQtJLiHZeLh6OFn1pI+GmAOQHhBNIh+t7jy2R4PlnEa7xU4HvO7m/2YW VAD9mbifgiFhzz/Gkb+D23ZYVG4A2e3vm+1k/voYhtX6Yt71MLZuJZAbKRPCFZ3J agFC5jxf9pQ78+UlzqRtHpmmMna5czQm09WUfS0OUj7E9T4UnkNY/4dL28NUVtQt WcDvbXNAk5FNxcnqbn48uuNamAtqz0C6X+PsWnQoiG6DNXFd5CKYBaWiOal+gL3X 2Y8LVnGRSOGOBvPWX4NOPVB9ssn9M053kTt7WK4o1UIznsN49liTeYwUA+KMOeVN 7UQgNz7JYBlFkUDA17exauNg/UXW+2J8L3gpogOkQ9c0pB+e8YEbuHOosMXH0wOv dVv9vQM8i1C8jyVkROc2AY4rlPV+wQLgUz7kI/35R8/rjdvkY8pEuA5z3MaWgYlL veDwMjEKMVbVVu1tNbv+ozrHGWDhT5VtUm3yqO695lu5pPX7yqkIVtcyJiyQfJxJ HvTu28mC4FRTf5y8EGlbb9yrt24qyI189VDT/Ub9vTPaqwxz956tM4xna+UHaH3R ylHQj8sm8BTc3c2lfFlE7OS+7EMCtpB+ixXKUjTlbucZdS2m2ss= =st+T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From peter at digitalbrains.com Wed Oct 25 19:59:53 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 19:59:53 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <54b5ec9b-5141-cca6-45b3-f22f93beb656@mailbox.org> References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> <54b5ec9b-5141-cca6-45b3-f22f93beb656@mailbox.org> Message-ID: <37a25cda-a3f5-c9a9-33c1-78fe0cab2dda@digitalbrains.com> On 25/10/17 16:15, Ralf wrote: > I was hoping for a simpler workaround to make GnuPG import the key. There is a pretty difficult workaround, using gpgsplit and standard Linux command-line tools. However, I get the sense you're not really looking for difficult workarounds :-). If I'm wrong about that, just say so and I'll give an example. I'll whip out a blank OpenPGP card, create a test key and do it, posting the results on the list. HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From ankostis at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 23:21:34 2017 From: ankostis at gmail.com (Kostis Anagnostopoulos) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 00:21:34 +0300 Subject: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions In-Reply-To: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> References: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> Message-ID: On 25 October 2017 at 12:27, Laurent Lavaud wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know what is the correct way to get a gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between session ? > > I have some cronjob that must use a key stored in the agent. > > Actually the first time a gpg-agent is launch, it create a socket in /run/user/PID/gnupg/ but when i logout this folder is cleaned by systemd and then if i come back i can't reconnect to the running gpg-agent because the socket has disapear... Have you tried to tell `systemd` to "linger" your user account? https://askubuntu.com/a/859583/251379 Best, Kostis > > This problem appears since i uprade to Ubuntu 17.10, it seems before systemd don't clean the /run/user/PID folder so the socket persist between session. > I don't think it is an Ubuntu bug, it seems to be a normal behavior that systemd clean this folder so how i could get a persistent socket for my gpg-agent ? > > thanks in advance for your help. > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From sourcelime at mailbox.org Wed Oct 25 23:29:37 2017 From: sourcelime at mailbox.org (Ralf) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 23:29:37 +0200 Subject: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID" In-Reply-To: <37a25cda-a3f5-c9a9-33c1-78fe0cab2dda@digitalbrains.com> References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> <54b5ec9b-5141-cca6-45b3-f22f93beb656@mailbox.org> <37a25cda-a3f5-c9a9-33c1-78fe0cab2dda@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: Hi Peter, > looking for difficult workarounds :-). If I'm wrong about that, just say > so and I'll give an example. I'll whip out a blank OpenPGP card, create > a test key and do it, posting the results on the list. I was hoping for something simple and I think eventually this should be simple; nevertheless I would make use of such a workaround / would be thankful for such an example :) Greetings, Ralf From laurent.lavaud at ladtech.fr Thu Oct 26 09:21:35 2017 From: laurent.lavaud at ladtech.fr (Laurent Lavaud) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 09:21:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions In-Reply-To: References: <609295499.4750.1508923663848.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> Message-ID: <691515915.5936.1509002495935.JavaMail.zimbra@ladtech.fr> Ok great enabling lingering works, i don't know why but on previous Ubuntu version lingering is not enabled but the /run/user/PID folder was not cleaned... Thanks ! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kostis Anagnostopoulos" To: "Laurent Lavaud" Cc: "GNUPG-Users" Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 11:21:34 PM Subject: Re: gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between sessions On 25 October 2017 at 12:27, Laurent Lavaud wrote: > Hello, > > I would like to know what is the correct way to get a gpg-agent 2.1 persistent socket between session ? > > I have some cronjob that must use a key stored in the agent. > > Actually the first time a gpg-agent is launch, it create a socket in /run/user/PID/gnupg/ but when i logout this folder is cleaned by systemd and then if i come back i can't reconnect to the running gpg-agent because the socket has disapear... Have you tried to tell `systemd` to "linger" your user account? https://askubuntu.com/a/859583/251379 Best, Kostis > > This problem appears since i uprade to Ubuntu 17.10, it seems before systemd don't clean the /run/user/PID folder so the socket persist between session. > I don't think it is an Ubuntu bug, it seems to be a normal behavior that systemd clean this folder so how i could get a persistent socket for my gpg-agent ? > > thanks in advance for your help. > > _______________________________________________ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users at gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From fulanoperez at cryptolab.net Thu Oct 26 16:00:36 2017 From: fulanoperez at cryptolab.net (Fulano Diego Perez) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:00:36 +1100 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS Message-ID: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> cannot work this out installed sqlite3 and gnutls available packages and -dev packages anybody confirm a working devuan jessie 2.2.x install and care to explain ? many thank yous ------------------ ------------------ GnuPG v2.2.1 has been configured as follows: Revision: 355ca9e (13660) Platform: GNU/Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) OpenPGP: yes S/MIME: yes Agent: yes Smartcard: yes (without internal CCID driver) G13: no Dirmngr: yes Gpgtar: yes WKS tools: no Protect tool: (default) LDAP wrapper: (default) Default agent: (default) Default pinentry: /usr/bin/pinentry Default scdaemon: (default) Default dirmngr: (default) Dirmngr auto start: yes Readline support: yes LDAP support: yes TLS support: no TOFU support: no Tor support: yes checking for SQLITE3... no configure: WARNING: *** *** Building without SQLite support - TOFU disabled *** *** *** checking for encfs... /usr/bin/encfs checking for fusermount... /bin/fusermount checking for openpty in -lutil... yes checking for shred... /usr/bin/shred checking for npth-config... /usr/local/bin/npth-config checking for NPTH - version >= 1.2... yes (1.5) checking NPTH API version... okay checking for ntbtls-config... no checking for NTBTLS - version >= 0.1.0... no checking for LIBGNUTLS... no configure: WARNING: *** *** Building without NTBTLS and GNUTLS - no TLS access to keyservers. *** *** From dan.horne at redbone.co.nz Fri Oct 27 01:52:33 2017 From: dan.horne at redbone.co.nz (Dan Horne) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 12:52:33 +1300 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from Message-ID: Hi all maybe I'm missing something, but how do I verify not only that an encrypted file is signed, but that it is signed by the party I expect to have signed it? In other words, if two parties can supply a file with the same name I want to make sure that when I think I'm dealing with a file from party A, it is actually signed by party A. At the the moment, when I decrypt the file, it seems to simply be checking that the signature is valid. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rjh at sixdemonbag.org Fri Oct 27 04:06:49 2017 From: rjh at sixdemonbag.org (Robert J. Hansen) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:06:49 -0400 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0b079d40-b7f4-38a4-ece2-1027024f3e2b@sixdemonbag.org> > maybe I'm missing something, but how do I verify not only that an > encrypted file is signed, but that it is signed by the party I expect to > have signed it? Look for output like: ===== Signature made 10/26/17 22:01:37 Eastern Daylight Time using RSA key CC11BE7CBBED77B120F37B011DCBDC01B44427C7 Good signature from "Robert J. Hansen " [ultimate] aka "Robert J. Hansen " [ultimate] aka "Robert J. Hansen " ===== See that line reading "Good signature"? That's what you're looking for. Hope this helps. :) From fulanoperez at cryptolab.net Fri Oct 27 05:02:25 2017 From: fulanoperez at cryptolab.net (Fulano Diego Perez) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 14:02:25 +1100 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS In-Reply-To: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> References: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> Message-ID: <0b5611e9-4b3f-8f3a-1e89-41f594eccc7d@cryptolab.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:00:36 +1100 From: Fulano Diego Perez To: GnuPG Users , dng at lists.dyne.org cannot work this out installed sqlite3 and gnutls available packages and -dev packages anybody confirm a working devuan jessie 2.2.x install and care to explain ? many thank yous ------------------ ------------------ GnuPG v2.2.1 has been configured as follows: Revision: 355ca9e (13660) Platform: GNU/Linux (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) OpenPGP: yes S/MIME: yes Agent: yes Smartcard: yes (without internal CCID driver) G13: no Dirmngr: yes Gpgtar: yes WKS tools: no Protect tool: (default) LDAP wrapper: (default) Default agent: (default) Default pinentry: /usr/bin/pinentry Default scdaemon: (default) Default dirmngr: (default) Dirmngr auto start: yes Readline support: yes LDAP support: yes TLS support: no TOFU support: no Tor support: yes checking for SQLITE3... no configure: WARNING: *** *** Building without SQLite support - TOFU disabled *** *** *** checking for encfs... /usr/bin/encfs checking for fusermount... /bin/fusermount checking for openpty in -lutil... yes checking for shred... /usr/bin/shred checking for npth-config... /usr/local/bin/npth-config checking for NPTH - version >= 1.2... yes (1.5) checking NPTH API version... okay checking for ntbtls-config... no checking for NTBTLS - version >= 0.1.0... no checking for LIBGNUTLS... no configure: WARNING: *** *** Building without NTBTLS and GNUTLS - no TLS access to keyservers. *** *** _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users at gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users From antony at blazrsoft.com Fri Oct 27 04:08:15 2017 From: antony at blazrsoft.com (Antony Prince) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 22:08:15 -0400 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You need to verify the key that signed it. A valid signature means nothing. A malicious actor could sign any message or days with a valid, verifiable key and send it to you. The heart of the matter is the key that signed it. Gnupg tells you which key signed the data, usually by long key ID IIRC. You have to make sure the key that signed the data is the key that you expect, basically. If you need something more in-depth, there are many more qualified individuals to assist on the list. On October 26, 2017 7:52:33 PM EDT, Dan Horne wrote: >Hi all > >maybe I'm missing something, but how do I verify not only that an >encrypted >file is signed, but that it is signed by the party I expect to have >signed >it? In other words, if two parties can supply a file with the same name >I >want to make sure that when I think I'm dealing with a file from party >A, >it is actually signed by party A. At the the moment, when I decrypt the >file, it seems to simply be checking that the signature is valid. -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.horne at redbone.co.nz Fri Oct 27 05:55:02 2017 From: dan.horne at redbone.co.nz (Dan Horne) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:55:02 +1300 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks - I get the line saying "good signature" i n my message, but are you saying that I have to grep the output for the message and the email address of the encryptor? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan.horne at redbone.co.nz Fri Oct 27 06:01:44 2017 From: dan.horne at redbone.co.nz (Dan Horne) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:01:44 +1300 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes - that's what my OP meant - Verifying the key. But I'm hoping to avoid greping the output. What I'd love to do is provide the key I want verified and for GnuPG to confirm e.g. something like the following would be fab: gpg2 --verify-sign On 27 October 2017 at 15:08, Antony Prince wrote: > You need to verify the key that signed it. A valid signature means > nothing. A malicious actor could sign any message or days with a valid, > verifiable key and send it to you. The heart of the matter is the key that > signed it. Gnupg tells you which key signed the data, usually by long key > ID IIRC. You have to make sure the key that signed the data is the key that > you expect, basically. If you need something more in-depth, there are many > more qualified individuals to assist on the list. > > On October 26, 2017 7:52:33 PM EDT, Dan Horne > wrote: >> >> Hi all >> >> maybe I'm missing something, but how do I verify not only that an >> encrypted file is signed, but that it is signed by the party I expect to >> have signed it? In other words, if two parties can supply a file with the >> same name I want to make sure that when I think I'm dealing with a file >> from party A, it is actually signed by party A. At the the moment, when I >> decrypt the file, it seems to simply be checking that the signature is >> valid. >> >> >> >> > -- > Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From skquinn at rushpost.com Fri Oct 27 06:11:54 2017 From: skquinn at rushpost.com (Shawn K. Quinn) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2017 23:11:54 -0500 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/26/2017 11:01 PM, Dan Horne wrote: > Yes - that's what my OP meant - Verifying the key. But I'm hoping to > avoid greping the output. What I'd love to do is provide the key I want > verified and for GnuPG to confirm e.g. something like the following > would be fab: > > gpg2 --verify-sign Maybe use gpgv2 instead and put only that one key in the trustedkeys.gpg or trustedkeys.kbx file? -- Shawn K. Quinn http://www.rantroulette.com http://www.skqrecordquest.com From dkg at fifthhorseman.net Fri Oct 27 06:43:17 2017 From: dkg at fifthhorseman.net (Daniel Kahn Gillmor) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 00:43:17 -0400 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS In-Reply-To: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> References: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> Message-ID: <87k1zhw68q.fsf@fifthhorseman.net> On Fri 2017-10-27 01:00:36 +1100, Fulano Diego Perez wrote: > cannot work this out > > installed sqlite3 and gnutls available packages and -dev packages what versions of these packages did you install? can you provide more explicit details? the debian packages build fine on stretch and later, but i'm reluctant to try to backport them to jessie myself these days. Such a port would introduce too many platform-level incompatibilities. --dkg -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 832 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fulanoperez at cryptolab.net Fri Oct 27 12:53:11 2017 From: fulanoperez at cryptolab.net (Fulano Diego Perez) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 21:53:11 +1100 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS In-Reply-To: <92c574db-8fc2-1575-3d8f-8c20b6e6393c@cryptolab.net> References: <92c574db-8fc2-1575-3d8f-8c20b6e6393c@cryptolab.net> Message-ID: <989fc1d5-d1aa-26ba-2093-2c0d7ed6ff83@cryptolab.net> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:36:09 +1100 From: Fulano Diego Perez To: GnuPG Users , dng at lists.dyne.org Daniel Kahn Gillmor: > On Fri 2017-10-27 01:00:36 +1100, Fulano Diego Perez wrote: >> cannot work this out >> >> installed sqlite3 and gnutls available packages and -dev packages > > what versions of these packages did you install? can you provide more > explicit details? aside from below i installed latest gnu package dependencies Package: libgnutls28-dev New: yes State: installed Automatically installed: no Multi-Arch: same Version: 3.3.8-6+deb8u7 Priority: optional Section: libdevel Maintainer: Debian GnuTLS Maintainers Architecture: amd64 Uncompressed Size: 2,957 k Depends: libgnutls-deb0-28 (= 3.3.8-6+deb8u7), libgnutlsxx28 (= 3.3.8-6+deb8u7), nettle-dev (>= 2.5), libc6-dev | libc-dev, zlib1g-dev, libtasn1-6-dev (>= 3.9), libp11-kit-dev, libgnutls-openssl27 (= 3.3.8-6+deb8u7) Suggests: gnutls-doc, gnutls-bin, guile-gnutls Conflicts: gnutls-dev Replaces: gnutls-dev Provides: gnutls-dev, libgnutls-openssl-dev Description: GNU TLS library - development files Package: libsqlite3-dev New: yes State: installed Automatically installed: no Multi-Arch: same Version: 3.8.7.1-1+deb8u2 Priority: optional Section: libdevel Maintainer: Laszlo Boszormenyi (GCS) Architecture: amd64 Uncompressed Size: 1,542 k Depends: libsqlite3-0 (= 3.8.7.1-1+deb8u2), libc6-dev Suggests: sqlite3-doc Description: SQLite 3 development files > > the debian packages build fine on stretch and later, but i'm reluctant > to try to backport them to jessie myself these days. Such a port would > introduce too many platform-level incompatibilities. > > --dkg > From wk at gnupg.org Fri Oct 27 13:11:46 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:11:46 +0200 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS In-Reply-To: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> (Fulano Diego Perez's message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2017 01:00:36 +1100") References: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> Message-ID: <87mv4c4zgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:00, fulanoperez at cryptolab.net said: > checking for LIBGNUTLS... no The minimal requirement is GNUTLS 3.0 - please check that you have the 3.x -dev package installed. You should also consult config.log to check why GNUTLS was not found. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Fri Oct 27 13:20:14 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:20:14 +0200 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: (Dan Horne's message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2017 17:01:44 +1300") References: Message-ID: <87inf04z2p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 06:01, dan.horne at redbone.co.nz said: > gpg2 --verify-sign Verification against a set of known keys is done using gpgv gpgv FILE which uses ~/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg. To specifiy another file with keys you use gpgv --keyring KEYRING FILE here is how we do this when building GnUPG using the Speedo scripts: if ! $GPGV --keyring "$distsigkey" swdb.lst.sig swdb.lst; then echo "list of software versions is not valid!" >&2 exit 1 fi This is from gnupg/build-aux/getswdb.sh. To create the file with the keys you can do this: gpg --export --export-options export-minimal FPR1 FPR2 FPR2 >trustedkeys.gpg Do _not_ use --armor. --export-options is not really required but strips down the size of the key. @Rob: Shouldn't we mention gpgv in the FAQ? Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wk at gnupg.org Fri Oct 27 13:26:40 2017 From: wk at gnupg.org (Werner Koch) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2017 13:26:40 +0200 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: (Dan Horne's message of "Fri, 27 Oct 2017 16:55:02 +1300") References: Message-ID: <87efpo4yrz.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 05:55, dan.horne at redbone.co.nz said: > Thanks - I get the line saying "good signature" i n my message, but are you > saying that I have to grep the output for the message and the email address > of the encryptor? Never ever do this. You need to use --status-fd to get well defined strings. For example $ gpg --verify --status-fd 1 x.msg 2>/dev/null \ | awk '$1=="[GNUPG:]" && $2=="VALIDSIG" {print $3}' prints the fingerprint of the signing iff the signature is valid. Take care that you know what is actually verified. The best way to accomplish this is to use detached signatures. Anyway, using gpgv is in most cases much more robust (see my other mail). Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 227 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fulanoperez at cryptolab.net Fri Oct 27 17:04:35 2017 From: fulanoperez at cryptolab.net (Fulano Diego Perez) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2017 02:04:35 +1100 Subject: gpg 2.2.x devuan jessie no TOFU TLS In-Reply-To: <87mv4c4zgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <7bd82df4-b18c-8734-3251-bbb7eaba2bf4@cryptolab.net> <87mv4c4zgt.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <417718a0-a866-9fc0-0057-efb93b15d435@cryptolab.net> Werner Koch: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2017 16:00, fulanoperez at cryptolab.net said: > >> checking for LIBGNUTLS... no > > The minimal requirement is GNUTLS 3.0 - please check that you have the > 3.x -dev package installed. You should also consult config.log to check > why GNUTLS was not found. > > > Salam-Shalom, > > Werner installing pkg-config found them ! From rehevkor5 at gmail.com Sun Oct 29 20:18:14 2017 From: rehevkor5 at gmail.com (Shannon C) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 14:18:14 -0500 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? Message-ID: I am wondering if anyone here can definitively say whether the ROCA vulnerability (CVE-2017-15361) described here https://crocs.fi.muni.cz/public/papers/rsa_ccs17 when it occurs in a subkey will make the private key vulnerable? I can't find anyone talking about this particular issue. Assuming that the secret key was generated outside of an Infineon chip, but that subsequently subkeys were generated by a chip with the ROCA vulnerability, does that compromise the main private key, or only the subkey? Some sites refuse to accept public keys with ROCA-affected subkeys even if the subkeys have been revoked. However, some tools appear to differentiate between the two. If, for example, I use https://keychest.net/roca to test my public key, the test result for my main key is "safe". However, the test result for the subkeys is, "Subject to ROCA, insecure." What's the right way to interpret this information? Thanks! Shannon -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From andrewg at andrewg.com Sun Oct 29 22:48:59 2017 From: andrewg at andrewg.com (Andrew Gallagher) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:48:59 +0000 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51F5B763-7DB4-45B9-9DC3-0AE4BB9B7800@andrewg.com> > On 29 Oct 2017, at 19:18, Shannon C wrote: > > I can't find anyone talking about this particular issue. Assuming that the secret key was generated outside of an Infineon chip, but that subsequently subkeys were generated by a chip with the ROCA vulnerability, does that compromise the main private key, or only the subkey? There should be no way for a compromised subkey to affect the security of its primary key. Creating a subkey does not alter the primary key in any way; all that happens is that an SBIND signature is created by the primary key for the subkey. This does not compromise the primary key material if done in a conformant way (if it did, your implementation would have *much* more serious problems). Further, if the subkey is revoked, the overall effect should be as if the subkey did not exist. An application that complains about revoked subkeys is probably being overly paranoid. There may be a flimsy argument that doing so might protect those people whose clients do not handle revocations properly. But if a client were to ignore subkey revocations then again, it has bigger problems. A From dgouttegattat at incenp.org Sun Oct 29 23:08:28 2017 From: dgouttegattat at incenp.org (Damien Goutte-Gattat) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2017 22:08:28 +0000 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> On 10/29/2017 07:18 PM, Shannon C wrote: > Assuming that the secret key was generated outside of an Infineon > chip, but that subsequently subkeys were generated by a chip with the > ROCA vulnerability, does that compromise the main private key, or > only the subkey? There is no mathematical link between a primary (or master) key and a subkey. A subkey is linked to a primary key only through a "subkey binding signature". If a subkey is compromised (meaning an attacker somehow managed to know the private key, be it through the ROCA vulnerability or any other method), this has *no impact* on the primary key. The attacker won't be able to infer any information about the primary key. This is also true the other way around: knowing the primary private key does not allow to deduce the private subkey(s). Damien -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dan.horne at redbone.co.nz Mon Oct 30 03:00:35 2017 From: dan.horne at redbone.co.nz (Dan Horne) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 15:00:35 +1300 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: <87inf04z2p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> References: <87inf04z2p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: Thanks. I exported my keys to ~/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg. I tried gpgv2 but got the following bash-3.2$ gpgv2 declaration.pgp gpgv: verify signatures failed: Unexpected error Adding --verbose did not affect this (Note this is a OpenCSW install) However, if I simply decrypt the file I get confirmation of the signature bash-3.2$ gpg2 --output declaration.txt --decrypt declaration.pgp gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID C0F7C32A, created 2017-10-26 "" gpg: Signature made Mon Oct 30 13:04:26 2017 NZDT using RSA key ID 0A5F3B0F gpg: Good signature from "" [ultimate] On 28 October 2017 at 00:20, Werner Koch wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 06:01, dan.horne at redbone.co.nz said: > > > gpg2 --verify-sign > > Verification against a set of known keys is done using gpgv > > gpgv FILE > > which uses ~/.gnupg/trustedkeys.gpg. To specifiy another file with keys > you use > > gpgv --keyring KEYRING FILE > > here is how we do this when building GnUPG using the Speedo scripts: > > if ! $GPGV --keyring "$distsigkey" swdb.lst.sig swdb.lst; then > echo "list of software versions is not valid!" >&2 > exit 1 > fi > > This is from gnupg/build-aux/getswdb.sh. To create the file with the > keys you can do this: > > gpg --export --export-options export-minimal FPR1 FPR2 FPR2 > >trustedkeys.gpg > > Do _not_ use --armor. --export-options is not really required but > strips down the size of the key. > > > @Rob: Shouldn't we mention gpgv in the FAQ? > > > Shalom-Salam, > > Werner > > -- > Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Mon Oct 30 14:05:46 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:05:46 +0100 Subject: Verify that the file is from who I expect it to be from In-Reply-To: References: <87inf04z2p.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Message-ID: <55c4780c-55e8-4682-cf70-c34bdcbd0a3e@digitalbrains.com> On 30/10/17 03:00, Dan Horne wrote: > However, if I simply decrypt the file I get confirmation of the signature This was a misunderstanding: gpgv cannot decrypt, so when Werner suggested gpgv, he mustn't have realised you were decrypting as well as verifying. HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Mon Oct 30 14:14:30 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:14:30 +0100 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> Message-ID: <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> On 29/10/17 23:08, Damien Goutte-Gattat wrote: > This is also true the other way around: knowing the primary private key > does not allow to deduce the private subkey(s). This is technically correct but in practice the point can be almost moot, depending on the threat model. When you know the primary key, you can issue a new signing subkey and get your signature accepted by others without needing to know the material of the real signing subkey. Likewise, you could create a new encryption subkey and get people to encrypt to that subkey instead of the real one, once again making knowledge of the encryption subkey unnecessary. This is much less inconspicuous; people, including the legitimate holder of the key, might notice. But by then it might be too late. But, I agree that the reverse is not true: a compromised subkey does not compromise the primary key in any way I can think of. And systems checking for ROCA should not reject a certificate because there is something wrong with an already revoked key. HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lachlan at twopif.net Tue Oct 31 01:08:04 2017 From: lachlan at twopif.net (Lachlan Gunn) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 10:38:04 +1030 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: 2017-10-30 23:44 GMT+10:30 Peter Lebbing : > But, I agree that the reverse is not true: a compromised subkey does not > compromise the primary key in any way I can think of. And systems > checking for ROCA should not reject a certificate because there is > something wrong with an already revoked key. > I'm not sure that this is 100% correct. The first part is true, but signatures of a key that has been revoked because it was superseded or lost are valid up to the revocation date, whereas ROCA-affected keys are compromised to some degree and so all signatures are suspect; the revocation status should, ideally, reflect this. Thanks, Lachlan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 31 11:39:24 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:39:24 +0100 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> On 31/10/17 01:08, Lachlan Gunn wrote: > I'm not sure that this is 100% correct.? The first part is true, but signatures > of a key that has been revoked because it was superseded or lost are valid up to > the revocation date, whereas ROCA-affected keys are compromised to some degree > and so all signatures are suspect; the revocation status should, ideally, > reflect this. Oh, I was talking about a ROCA-affected *subkey* but a clean primary key, where the subkey was already revoked by the primary key. I think you are talking about a ROCA-affected primary key. A ROCA-affected primary key should be revoked as *compromised*, replaced and not used in any capacity. And yes, the subkey should also be revoked with reason "compromised", for the reason you state. To clarify, do you agree if I reword the paragraph you contest as: But, I agree that the reverse is not true: a compromised subkey does not compromise the primary key in any way I can think of. And systems checking for ROCA should not reject a certificate because there is something wrong with an already revoked subkey. The only change is in the last word :-). HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lachlan at twopif.net Tue Oct 31 11:45:51 2017 From: lachlan at twopif.net (Lachlan Gunn) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:45:51 +0200 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: Le 2017-10-31 ? 12:39, Peter Lebbing a ?crit?: > To clarify, do you agree if I reword the paragraph you contest as: > > But, I agree that the reverse is not true: a compromised subkey does not > compromise the primary key in any way I can think of. And systems > checking for ROCA should not reject a certificate because there is > something wrong with an already revoked subkey. > > The only change is in the last word :-). No, I don't think so---even if the subkey is revoked, there is nothing stopping me from factoring its public key and then signing all kinds of documents with a backdated timestamp. I guess if I'm running the test myself then I can go ahead and ignore signatures from that subkey, but ideally the key would actually be marked as compromised. Thanks, Lachlan From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 31 11:46:40 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:46:40 +0100 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: On 31/10/17 11:39, Peter Lebbing wrote: > And yes, the subkey should also be revoked with reason "compromised", for the > reason you state. And only now the penny drops. I suppose a system checking for ROCA might rightfully take offense at a subkey revoked as "superseded" or "lost"[1], because with ROCA it is actually "compromised". I never checked what GnuPG does with two revocations on a key, the earlier a "superseded" and the later a "compromised". The only correct thing would be to treat it as "compromised", especially because the attacker could generate a "superseded" with an earlier timestamp after the compromise and create the same situation. So it ought to work. Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 31 11:48:22 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:48:22 +0100 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: On 31/10/17 11:45, Lachlan Gunn wrote: > No, I don't think so I was already writing a follow-up but was momentarily blocked on the right way to phrase some of it :-). Our mails crossed. Having read my follow-up, do you now agree? If the subkey is revoked as "compromised", all is well and good? Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lachlan at twopif.net Tue Oct 31 11:56:07 2017 From: lachlan at twopif.net (Lachlan Gunn) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:56:07 +0200 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <482af4e5-3be0-cf27-f7a4-3b46d33ec4f3@twopif.net> Le 2017-10-31 ? 12:48, Peter Lebbing a ?crit?: > Having read my follow-up, do you now agree? If the subkey is revoked as > "compromised", all is well and good? I can't see any reason why this should be problematic. And for signatures that you know for sure are pre-ROCA, it makes sense to keep the subkey around. The only difficulty is when the owner doesn't have the secret key anymore, and so can't re-revoke it. Then you might want to keep it from being disseminated further. Thanks, Lachlan From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 31 12:01:37 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:01:37 +0100 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: <482af4e5-3be0-cf27-f7a4-3b46d33ec4f3@twopif.net> References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> <482af4e5-3be0-cf27-f7a4-3b46d33ec4f3@twopif.net> Message-ID: On 31/10/17 11:56, Lachlan Gunn wrote: > The only difficulty is when the owner doesn't have the secret key > anymore, and so can't re-revoke it. Then you might want to keep it from > being disseminated further. Revocations are done by the primary key. If the user has lost the secret primary, they should fetch their revocation certificate, not fool around with the subkeys ;-). (Incidentally, this is why you don't need revocation certificates for individual subkeys.) I'm glad we agree, because I didn't sleep so well and I see I'm making mistakes :-D. The [1] in: I suppose a system checking for ROCA might rightfully take offense at a subkey revoked as "superseded" or "lost"[1], because with ROCA it is actually "compromised". should have been a footnote: [1] Lachlan indicates "lost" is also treated as "signatures before revocation date remain valid", but I haven't checked myself. HTH, Peter. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From lachlan at twopif.net Tue Oct 31 12:06:43 2017 From: lachlan at twopif.net (Lachlan Gunn) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 13:06:43 +0200 Subject: Impact of ROCA (CVE-2017-15361) in subkey vs. private key? In-Reply-To: References: <7e5e53e6-7a24-4b8c-004b-8e8800b01bdc@incenp.org> <40a25091-7597-73be-f9b0-dc8b5637b7f7@digitalbrains.com> <62aa7860-4980-f757-a9ca-8868506b53dd@digitalbrains.com> <482af4e5-3be0-cf27-f7a4-3b46d33ec4f3@twopif.net> Message-ID: <85a8d75f-adef-01fc-bd4f-2ec8289f6594@twopif.net> Le 2017-10-31 ? 13:01, Peter Lebbing a ?crit?: > Revocations are done by the primary key. If the user has lost the secret > primary, they should fetch their revocation certificate, not fool around with > the subkeys ;-). (Incidentally, this is why you don't need revocation > certificates for individual subkeys.) True, though this applies to the primary key too---I was thinking of all signatures, really. But if you consider that correct then it is only accidentally so :) > [1] Lachlan indicates "lost" is also treated as "signatures before revocation > date remain valid", but I haven't checked myself. I would recommend checking this yourself, as a quick google didn't find it, and I haven't had a chance to do more thorough research. Thanks, Lachlan From peter at digitalbrains.com Tue Oct 31 14:25:00 2017 From: peter at digitalbrains.com (Peter Lebbing) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:25:00 +0100 Subject: Hacking off-card backup to be on-disk key (was: Importing an off-card backup of the encryption key of a Nitrokey fails with "no user ID") In-Reply-To: References: <4afafc24-2d69-4db6-3c99-a1ba84f0335a@mailbox.org> <873767iu9x.fsf@fsij.org> <54b5ec9b-5141-cca6-45b3-f22f93beb656@mailbox.org> <37a25cda-a3f5-c9a9-33c1-78fe0cab2dda@digitalbrains.com> Message-ID: <96db5c72-e197-d831-09d4-bbc934009214@digitalbrains.com> Hi Ralf, On 25/10/17 23:29, Ralf wrote: > I was hoping for something simple and I think eventually this should be > simple; nevertheless I would make use of such a workaround / would be > thankful for such an example :) I fiddled around with a test card. Prepare for a wall of text. I created a test key on card: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- sec rsa2048/A7C45205828E4D09 created: 2017-10-31 expires: 2017-11-07 usage: SC card-no: 0005 0000106E trust: never validity: ultimate ssb rsa2048/D614DCD256D4028C created: 2017-10-31 expires: 2017-11-07 usage: A card-no: 0005 0000106E ssb rsa2048/93104C8F5B4A4714 created: 2017-10-31 expires: 2017-11-07 usage: E card-no: 0005 0000106E --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- We start with damage control. Always backup your .gnupg directory before doing risky stuff. I'm assuming the backup dir .gnupg~ does not already exist; otherwise, delete it first or choose a different name. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ cd $ cp -a .gnupg/ .gnupg~ --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- The following actions: export secret key, delete secret key from keyring, import secret key, show an interesting behaviour of my GnuPG 2.1.18 related to card keys: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ gpg -o cardkey.gpg --export-secret-keys 0976A143384202C99E7C26EFA7C45205828E4D09 $ gpg --delete-secret-and-public-keys-keys 0976A143384202C99E7C26EFA7C45205828E4D09 [...] $ gpg --import cardkey.gpg gpg: key A7C45205828E4D09: "Test Backup Hack" not changed gpg: To migrate 'secring.gpg', with each smartcard, run: gpg --card-status gpg: key A7C45205828E4D09: secret key imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: unchanged: 1 gpg: secret keys read: 1 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- It will not import the secret key stubs[1]. What it is obliquely saying is: don't import key stubs, just insert your smartcard and run --card- status. Keep this in mind. It will come back in a different form. Don't run --card-status at this time, by the way. Now we start with packet surgery. Unlike a surgeon, we start by fully taking apart the body ;-). --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ cd tmp/ $ gpgsplit ../cardkey.gpg $ ls 000001-005.secret_key 000004-007.secret_subkey 000007-002.sig 000002-013.user_id 000005-002.sig 000003-002.sig 000006-007.secret_subkey --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- I always have a "tmp" dir handy for throwaway stuff. Create an empty dir first if necessary. An OpenPGP file always consists of a stream of packets. gpgslit just splits these packets over multiple files without changing anything else. We need to figure out which of the "secret_subkey" files is the secret key stub for the encryption key. First note that the encryption key is the key with ID 93104C8F5B4A4714, as can be told from the off-card backup file named sk_93104C8F5B4A4714.gpg. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ cat *secret*|gpg --list-packets # off=0 ctb=95 tag=5 hlen=3 plen=294 :secret key packet: version 4, algo 1, created 1509451630, expires 0 pkey[0]: [2048 bits] pkey[1]: [17 bits] gnu-divert-to-card S2K, algo: 0, simple checksum, hash: 0 serial-number: d2 76 00 01 24 01 02 00 00 05 00 00 10 6e 00 00 keyid: A7C45205828E4D09 # off=297 ctb=9d tag=7 hlen=3 plen=294 :secret sub key packet: version 4, algo 1, created 1509451630, expires 0 pkey[0]: [2048 bits] pkey[1]: [17 bits] gnu-divert-to-card S2K, algo: 0, simple checksum, hash: 0 serial-number: d2 76 00 01 24 01 02 00 00 05 00 00 10 6e 00 00 keyid: D614DCD256D4028C # off=594 ctb=9d tag=7 hlen=3 plen=294 :secret sub key packet: version 4, algo 1, created 1509451630, expires 0 pkey[0]: [2048 bits] pkey[1]: [17 bits] gnu-divert-to-card S2K, algo: 0, simple checksum, hash: 0 serial-number: d2 76 00 01 24 01 02 00 00 05 00 00 10 6e 00 00 keyid: 93104C8F5B4A4714 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- These are the three packets with "secret" in their name, *in order*. The last of the three has the right key ID, so that means 000006-007.secret_subkey contains the stub we want to replace. Now let's take a look at that pesky sk_93104C8F5B4A4714.gpg that you were trying to import, with the off-card backup of the encryption key: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ gpg --list-packets ~/.gnupg/sk_93104C8F5B4A4714.gpg # off=0 ctb=95 tag=5 hlen=3 plen=966 :secret key packet: version 4, algo 1, created 1509451630, expires 0 pkey[0]: [2048 bits] pkey[1]: [17 bits] iter+salt S2K, algo: 7, SHA1 protection, hash: 2, salt: 0B784F565A0849EB protect count: 28311552 (235) protect IV: 84 f1 35 77 5c f1 e2 70 b7 00 76 aa ef 85 86 6e skey[2]: [v4 protected] keyid: 93104C8F5B4A4714 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- This is a "secret key packet", but we want a "secret sub key packet" (sic). Let's first copy this "secret key packet" in the correct place, and then grab your scalpel: --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ cp ../.gnupg/sk_93104C8F5B4A4714.gpg 000006-007.secret_subkey $ dd if=000006-007.secret_subkey bs=1 count=1|hd 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 00000000 95 |.| 00000001 1 byte copied, 3.1911e-05 s, 31.3 kB/s $ echo -ne '\x9d' | dd of=000006-007.secret_subkey bs=1 conv=notrunc 1+0 records in 1+0 records out 1 byte copied, 3.4443e-05 s, 29.0 kB/s --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- With the first "dd", we check if the file starts with the byte 0x95. If so, we should replace that byte by 0x9d. If it doesn't start with 0x95, we need to grab a copy of RFC 4880 and figure out what to do next, but I have no reason to believe GnuPG will have used something else than 0x95 when it created your backup. It's just a safety check to be sure. Flipping that single bit in the first byte is what changes the packet from a "secret key packet" to a "secret sub key packet". So now we can reconstruct an OpenPGP file containing your private key, for just the encryption subkey. The other two keys (primary and authentication sub) are still key stubs pointing to the smartcard. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ cat * >/../uncarded-key.gpg $ cd .. $ gpg --import uncarded-key.gpg gpg: key A7C45205828E4D09: "Test Backup Hack" not changed gpg: To migrate 'secring.gpg', with each smartcard, run: gpg --card-status gpg: key A7C45205828E4D09: secret key imported gpg: Total number processed: 1 gpg: unchanged: 1 gpg: secret keys read: 1 gpg: secret keys imported: 1 --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Ah, here is our friend "run gpg --card-status" from before. It wasn't phrased very nicely the first time around, but this time it's even more confounding. Of the one key processed, one key is unchanged. Of the same one key, one is imported. Uhuh. What has happened is that it has not imported the primary key and the authentication subkey. But it *has* imported the encryption subkey. So it has both not changed and imported one key. In a universe with a different logic, this makes perfect sense. Note the double meaning of "secret key": we use it both to refer to individual keys like the primary and each subkey, as well as to refer to the whole of a primary key with its subkeys. It's what makes this even more confounding. But, nonetheless, it works. We cannot use the primary or the auth key, at least until we insert the smartcard and run "gpg --card-status", but we *can* use the encryption subkey. It is now an on-disk key. --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- $ echo test | gpg -r 0976A143384202C99E7C26EFA7C45205828E4D09 -o test.gpg -e gpg: test backup hack: Verified 0 signatures and encrypted 0 messages. File 'test.gpg' exists. Overwrite? (y/N) y $ gpg -d test.gpg gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 93104C8F5B4A4714, created 2017-10-31 "Test Backup Hack" test --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- Workaround difficult enough for ya? :-) If you screw up your installation, you should be able to put it back by deleting ~/.gnupg and copying back ~/.gnupg~ in its place. I haven't encountered any issues with gpg-agent staying alive throughout this swapping of the floor under its feet. Either it is watching the inode number of its homedir or something like that and notices it changed, or I simply haven't managed to trip it up yet. It might be prudent to kill the agent in between. HTH, Peter. [1] "Secret key stub": a small bit of data that indicates on which smartcard the key is, rather than the actual secret key itself that would normally be there. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 488 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: