If you never explicitly changed the default trust model, then I would expect you are not using TOFU, but the presence of a tofu.db file strongly suggests that you are indeed using it.

I'm not sure. How to check it? In man gpg I only see instructions on how to change the trust model. ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf does not have any trust model related entry. I have ~/.gnupg/tofu.db file however.

This looks reminiscent of a bug previously seen in GPA (T3748).

It seems that Debian does not install te required libgpg-error correctl.

I understand the Problem. Your recipient formatted the reply in such a way that GpgOL does not detect that the original message is Quoted, verifies it and shows only the verified part.

But why is that the case for OpenPGP Signatures, then? The difference does not make sense to me.

The key receives fully trust and thus we get the "green" flag plus the "expired" flag. In my test with OpenPGP the key was not trysted and thus we did not got only the "expired" flag. At some distant past we agreed on these rules.

gpgsm behaves exactly as gpg and as explain in doc/DETAILS. VALIDSIG is issues even for signatures done by an expired certificate. Let me check whey GPGME claims "green" here while it does not not an expired OpenPGP signature.

I think this issue is important as GPGME should not report "Green" / Everything OK in that case and only have the EXPKEYSIG in details.

1. Create Mail and sign with PGP/inline activated
2. Send mail to someone else who does not use gpg etc.
3. Get a response including full quote of your email

I changed the priority to 'Normal'. The problem now is not the libssh usage, but how we can assume use of secure memory by random generator(s).

By libssh upstream, the problem has been fixed: commit-72f6b34

Thanks for your report. Are you sure that "Allow HTML" makes the difference?

As I link this Ticket often when talking about this limitation. Here is a short animation to show what is meant by moving but not opening a mail:

I'm not sure I understand your Problem. For me it works as it should.

Here is the function:
https://git.libssh.org/projects/libssh.git/tree/src/dh.c#n227

Am I right to assume that the test suite is terminating and restarting libgcrypt? Although we have features for this, I am still not convinced that this is a proper use of libgcrypt. There are just too many cases how this can fail. Unix is not designed to use shared libraries in so-called "plugins". I need to look closer at the libssh code.

It would be better not to require gcry_control(GCRYCTL_CLOSE_RANDOM_DEVICE). Automatic handling through gcry_control(GCRYCTL_TERM_SECMEM) would be better.

The patch D461 makes gcry_control(GCRYCTL_CLOSE_RANDOM_DEVICE) free the allocated secure memory.

It assumes a change of libssh like:

Here is my patch: D461: jent random requires finalizer to deallocate secure memory

I downloaded it and I' m using it.
Nice feature the "notepad".... easier for encrypt/sign.

The latest Version of Kleopatra has a "Notepad" View that should do what you want. E.g. If you decrypt something in there it preselects the keys the message was encrypted to when you encrypt it again.

In T3963#114101, @aheinecke wrote:

OOooh yeee.
Ok. Didn't know how bad gpg4usb really is.
I looked into it. Gpg4usb distributes their own binary GPGME version https://github.com/gpg4usb/gpg4usb/tree/master/linbuild/lib I don't even know which version that is. They are in violation of the GPL as they don't offer the source code of that GPGME version.

So, don't use it please what they do is horrible from a security standpoint. Try using Kleopatra (which I personally maintain). And if it does not work for your use case please let us know what your use case is and we can try to make it better for you. :-)

But indeed for gpg4usb you can't expect help here. They are very likely shipping a horribly outdated version with bugs that have since been fixed.

Workaround is to click cancel so that the next key is tried; right?

I 'll try GPA and Kleopatra, I hope will do the same tasks.
thanks anyway.

I suspect gpg4usb is a dead project anyway. I've been on their mailing list for a while and according to my records the last post from the pseudonymous author(s) is from October, 2016. I'm not sure how much of that GPL breach is intentional or just a result of web services going offline and not being restored.

The Python portion of this is done, the tests will now create a key with an expiration a few years shy of the 2106 end date (NYE 2099).

It seems to be 1.1.6 from 2010 or so. They use gpg 1.4.20 which misses a critical security fix.

OOooh yeee.
Ok. Didn't know how bad gpg4usb really is.
I looked into it. Gpg4usb distributes their own binary GPGME version https://github.com/gpg4usb/gpg4usb/tree/master/linbuild/lib I don't even know which version that is. They are in violation of the GPL as they don't offer the source code of that GPGME version.

I'll volunteer to look into it. IMO "Invalid Crypto Engine" points definitely to a GPGME bug and I want to know whats going on there.

Thank you for the quick turn-around! I especially appreciate the difficulty of out-of-release-cycle changes.

This bug tracker does not support gpg4usb - please use their bug tracker.

Workaround is to click cancel so that the next key is tried; right?

This crash was new in Gpg4win-3.1.0 introduced with: dc48589b3d429d7d156c75b4e7bc784b140f40ce

Thank you for the report. I can reproduce the problem. I extended the title a bit so that its easier to find for others who might also see this.

@dcialdella Well as you are here already you can open one here. Alternatively I would have thought Ubuntu's Launchpad.

Do not define NDEBUG - defining this is a bad idea. Anyway, I will fix that problem.

@aheinecke thanks for the post.
When you said "open a new issue" is create here or in Ubuntu forums a new issue ?
I'll do. when ?
I imagine ni some weeks will be solved but I use the tool everyday for secure text.

Both CRL downloads and the error handling / reporting is much improved in Gpg4win-3.1.1

This is resolved in my opinion. I've tested with some larger CRL's and it worked on Windows.

@dcialdella I've checked the Ubuntu Patches, they don't include the patch that caused the problem for GpgOL in this issue. Please report your problem either to Ubuntu or open a new issue, ideally with some instructions how to reproduce your problem.

I've just checked the current build to the previous one (even when I get rid of the build directories, I keep a copy of the config.log since you never know when it might come in handy).

FYI: this most recent update broke builds on OS X 10.9 for Qt, but everything else is fine.

Thanks.

I assume -z0 could be used as a workaround but without compression then.
Fix goes into 2.2.7 to be release tomorrow (tm)

No longer happens when the good old ldapwrapper is used.

gpg 2.2.4-1ubunt amd64 GNU Privacy Guard -- minimalist p

It's possible that was one of the upstream patches they decided to include.

It is in 1.30 which I released a few minutes ago. Only minor other changes.

@dcialdella Do you have a "non standard" GnuPG / GPGME installed? What are the versions?

I have the same issue with Xubuntu 18.04 lts, and GNUPG.
./start_linux_64bit
[Error] Source: GPGME String: "Invalid crypto engine"
[Error] Source: GPGME String: "Invalid crypto engine"
[Error] Source: GPGME String: "Invalid crypto engine"

The last change to the python installer was, IIRC, one I discussed with Justus off-list around the middle of, um, last year? Maybe the year before?

Now there it gets complicated. According to the card software author in 3.3 and even 2.2 there is a fix. BUT there was a small amount of cards already created in 3.3 without the fix. Nobody ever told my how to diferentiate them.
There is no Version 3.3.1 you can by - it is only 3.3. So you can buy one and hope you have a good one.
At least this is my understanding.

@aheinecke maybe recheck with GNUPG 2.2.6 or 2.2.7.

I'm using the kdepim-docker for tests, that is based on KDE Neon, that is based on Ubuntu xenial (16.04), so the version for GnuPG2 is 2.1.11-6ubuntu2. Good to know, that the GnuPG version also matters for this stuff.

Hi Andre,

Thanks for the tip, moving unopened secure email to a folder is the solution, I guess I just had to ask.

Beta? the last issue I report I was told to test on the beta which worked and forgot upgrade afterward.

ALL GOOD! Merci!

Jacques

From: aheinecke (Andre Heinecke) <noreply@dev.gnupg.org>
Sent: April 27, 2018 12:43 AM
To: Jacques Latour <Jacques.Latour@cira.ca>
Subject: [Task] [Closed] T3943: gpgOL

aheinecke closed this task as "Invalid".
aheinecke added a comment.

yes sorry, but due to a design limitation it's impossible to move mails while the decrypted / verified content is visible. Our task for this is T3459https://dev.gnupg.org/T3459 (so I'm closing here as invalid even though the problem is valid.)

As workaround you have to move mails while they are not shown. E.g. if you move them without selecting them, or unselect a mail by shift clicking it. Here is an example what I mean by that:
https://files.intevation.de/users/aheinecke/gpgol_moving.gif

Btw. Is there a reason why you are using a beta and not 3.1.0 ?

TASK DETAIL
https://dev.gnupg.org/T3943

EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://dev.gnupg.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/

To: aheinecke

Cc: aheinecke, latour_jacques, gp_ast

This is an automated email from the GnuPG development hub. If you have registered in the past at https://bugs.gnupg.org/ your account was migrated automatically. You can visit https://dev.gnupg.org/ to set a new password and update your email preferences.

Ok so it was impossible to detect when a mail is printed and block the printing until the decryption was completed.

This was fixed with 7eed3c4c5e9f84bed0e412213cf404a18cd54358

I can't reproduce this with GnuPG 2.2.6 or 2.2.7 beta and GPGME 1.11.0 . There I correctly get User Canceled for OpenPGP but "No Secret Key" for S/MIME, also using GpgME++.

Hi Carlos,

yes sorry, but due to a design limitation it's impossible to move mails while the decrypted / verified content is visible. Our task for this is T3459 (so I'm closing here as invalid even though the problem is valid.)

I note that this problem could also affect a user with multiple identities, one of which has their decryption keys on a smartcard. If a message arrives encrypted to both identities, but the user does not have their smartcard available, they will hit the same issue.

Does v3.3.1 fix this? (The release notes for it seem to imply that's not the case.)

Not to mention making sure we test for a time after the end of the old 32-bit clock.

Still happens. There are also "BER" errors that seem random.