Page MenuHome GnuPG

gpg: renaming `C:/GnuPG\pubring.gpg' to `C:/GnuPG\pubring.bak' failed: Permission denied
Closed, ResolvedPublic

Description

Because of it, I can't add/ create new secret key.
Please advise.

C:\GNUPG>gpg --update-trustdb
gpg: renaming C:/GnuPG\pubring.gpg' to C:/GnuPG\pubring.bak' failed:
Permission denied
gpg: failed to rebuild keyring cache: file rename error
gpg: 3 marginal(s) needed, 1 complete(s) needed, classic trust model
gpg: depth: 0 valid: 9 signed: 3 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 0f, 9u
gpg: depth: 1 valid: 3 signed: 0 trust: 0-, 0q, 0n, 0m, 3f, 0u
gpg: next trustdb check due at 2016-04-22

Details

Version
1.4.12

Event Timeline

Mark18976 set Version to 1.4.12.
Mark18976 added a subscriber: Mark18976.

Please check if the directory (of C:\GnuPG) permission is valid. Command would
be: dir C:\GnuPG
Please check if pubring.bak does not exist.

Permissions are fine.
Still same issue.

On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 2:11 AM, NIIBE Yutaka via BTS <gnupg@bugs.g10code.com

wrote:

NIIBE Yutaka <gniibe@fsij.org> added the comment:

Please check if the directory (of C:\GnuPG) permission is valid. Command
would
be: dir C:\GnuPG
Please check if pubring.bak does not exist.


status: unread -> chatting


GnuPG's BTS <gnupg@bugs.g10code.com>
<T2028>


werner lowered the priority of this task from High to Normal.Jul 21 2015, 10:01 AM
werner added a subscriber: werner.

1.4.12 is pretty old. Please try 1.4.19 and report whether this problems persists.

I can't do it on production environment.
Have to fix it like it is, but still don't know where is an issue.

On Tue, Jul 21, 2015 at 3:01 AM, Werner Koch via BTS <gnupg@bugs.g10code.com

wrote:

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> added the comment:

1.4.12 is pretty old. Please try 1.4.19 and report whether this problems
persists.


priority: urgent -> bug


GnuPG's BTS <gnupg@bugs.g10code.com>
<T2028>


If you can't do that we can't help you here. You should contact a commercial
supporter (cf. https://gnupg.org/service.html).

Please note that 1.4.12 has security problems and should be updated anyway.

As Werner stated, this appears to be a user support inquiry, which is better
answered elsewhere. As such, I'm marking this issue as resolved.

werner claimed this task.