In T2300#90092, @aheinecke wrote:

Ah nevermind. I think myself that this is nobug and current behavior is correct.

To implement / test the "not literally RFC compliant but in practice better" behavior let us call this now a wish and feature request as there are certificates in the wild other then intevation's and customers in large institutions run into that.

As far as I know this works.

This works but might have created a regression which is tracked in T4701

I give this normal priority even if it is a whish because I have the same whish and already have some code around that would make it more comfortable, especially if it is used directly in GpgOL.

I still would like to test this some more and work on it. I think the implemnation might still be a bit fragile.

Here is an example containing such a Attestation Signature:

BTW: I have the problem that I want to know the keys of all cards. "getinfo card_list" along with --demand can be used for this. gpg-card works this way. It does not work if plug in addtional cards becuase card_list shows only the cards for which a SERIALNO command has been used. A new feature to scan the buses for all readers and cards would be quite useful.

Still there are two places where we use "SCD serialno --demand <SERIALNO>". One is g10/skclist.c where we list available keys, another is the funciton card_key_available in agent/command-ssh.c .

By the change of rG9f39e0167d06: agent: Fix ask_for_card to allow a key on multiple cards., the SERIALNO in the stub is just an auxiliary information, not identifying the card. Now, it is the keygrip for key to identify/select the card.

Thanks for the detailed implemention plan. For the include-historic et al things it might be better to make use of the filter-syntax. I am not sure what is bets but that get clearer during coding. First step will be to add a parser and to silence 2.2 about this. I can imagine to later backport some basic functionality to 2.2

I did too many things at once.
I'm going to divide up into pieces.

PowerPC SHA-256 and SHA-512 implementations with little bit more tuning committed. Most notably, SHA-512 on POWER8 now gives similar performance to OpenSSL:

Patches send to mailing list:
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/2019-August/004800.html
https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/2019-August/004799.html

I'll start working on PowerPC GHASH implementation in September after SHA2 is done.

I'll start working on new PowerPC SHA2 implementations for libgcrypt in coming weeks.

Patches for PowerPC AES acceleration sent to mailing-list, based partly on initial work by Shawn Landden (@slandden): https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gcrypt-devel/2019-August/004788.html

It has now been more than a month since:

And also this is excellent point.

reviewing this, i think the situation is:

Sounds interesting @stm! Are there technical documents or specifications I could read to dig into details?

@dkg First step toward the canonical OpenPGP certificate export: http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/libtmcg.git/commit/?id=75372cac01501ae427dec1ae18805449bf28d087

@wiktor-k Thanks for your interest.

Except w32_system function, it's done.

Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. I was confused by the hard-coded timeout value and got it all wrong.

Hi everyone,

In general, if it requires more time, a reader can reply with time extension.

@werner wrote:

Other tasks in master are right now more important.

Other tasks in master are right now more important. You need to wait a bit more.

So, what about this? If I recall correctly, we had agreed in the call to merge this patch, at least into master?

Thank you. Merged.

@werner I would be willing to share 20% to the reviewer of my patches. (or 25% in this case, as @jwilk went through the effort to even write a test to point out a bug in my code). However, so far that has been entirely @jwilk who has been reviewing my patches.

I've just pushed rE732855a483709345a5c0f49504f45cb8da3f883a to dkg-fix-T4643 in the gpg-error git repository. I don't know why it is not yet visible here.

Thanks.
Merged (with line break in the Makefile.am and formatting of commit message.

I don't know why dkg-fix-T4641 is not showing up here on the assuan git repo.

@dkg You are right. The term "issuer" was too ambiguous.
I like your proposal and would try to implement it. However, "export" of dkg-keycheck and other programs from DKGPG are very limited.

I've just pushed rA45f01593d4ce794ae3562359aee2ff80c97e368e to the dkg-fix-T4641 branch that resolves this.

Thanks for the feedback. I'll go ahead and close any tickets that come in via debian that expect to be able to cross compile without having at least once had a native compiler on the platform to generate the appropriate lock-obj-pub-*.h.

In fact this specific scheme of indirect access to pthread objects is there to minimize dependencies of libgpg-error. It makes cross-compiling a bit harder but that is anyway the case because you need to check a lot of things for a new platform.

It is on on my private todo list but thanks for opening a public issue for tracking.

@stm it kind of is a last-resort already, given that it's only in the event where the signature creation dates are equal, but sure, i wouldn't mind adjusting the proposal to say that (sigs) means "sort by date, then issuer, then binary content" -- but what do we think "sort by issuer" means?

Please do not change the priority back. That is a maintainer's task. I consider this along with adding replicas of issues to a bit rude.

Please do not change the priority back without discussing this with the maintainer first. Thanks.

Due to T4628, i no longer think that import-clean is a good idea by default.

Maybe GnuPG could display a prompt if it detects a pubring.gpg and no pubring.kbx. Something like:

It turned out to be a downstream issue and the change in message class was enough from our side.

We as GPGTools would also like to see this addition being integrated into GnuPG, since we do plan to switch to keys.openpgp.org in the near future, as we have long been hoping for a key server with better performance and among other things email verification. Without this change, revocations would not work as expected in combination with hagrid however. Preferably of course in the 2.2.X branch.

I pushed my change as: rT7b2c4d9dd50b: Support GCM.
Please test.

then they are sorted by their binary content.

No. I intentionally select: Not-backporting this feature.
The feature is added for Yubikey, in the specification.
Use of the feature by Data-Object is not that so useful.

That is a limit for the web key service to publish a certificate. IIRC, Debian developers do not use this but Debian creates the WKD from a database.

This is especially relevant if you are not going to implement the fallback to import-clean that was proposed in T4591.

I see that you have lowered the WKD limit to 64KiB with 6396f8d115f21ae15571b683e9ac9d1d7e3f44f4 -- i think this is a mistake, as reasonable certificates can be several times that size (e.g. zack's cleaned certificate, mentioned above). I'd prefer a limit of 256KiB.

and from my understanding they are sending the self-signatures anyway.

This is not just about keys.openpgp.org. It's about any keystore that implements user id redaction, for whatever reason. When you say "what they can do is accept only user ids which…" i think you mean "the userid-redacting keystores can instead redistribute user ids which …". Is that right?

I think we should not backport this to 2.2 - okay?

Not sending the user id packet, is just a bad idea because that user id exists and from my understanding they are sending the self-signatures anyway. They should not try to argue with the GDPR here, that is privacy theater. The key itself is a personal data and due to technical reasons this data is required. What they can do is to accept only user ids which carry just only mail address and no comments or name. posteo.de for example requires this for years and the WKD drafts has a feature to support this.

You are right. I again mixed this up with gpg-wks-client. Over there we have a limit implemented unsing --max-output to avoid compression based attacks.

@werner, i don't think there is a 64K limit either, at least not in 2.2.16. Here is 2.2.16 with an empty homedir fetching Zack's certificate here which is > 97KiB:

Just want to weigh in here to say this would be incredibly useful given the shift to the new keyserver model. See T4604 for more context.

Well, I mixed this up. On sending a a new key to the server export-minimal is used. Receiving a key uses keep-uid=REQUESTED and a 64k limit.

I'm also interested in fine details especially w.r.t. interfacing with GnuPG. I've seen multiple timestamping standards starting from RFC3161, to blockchains or secure time protocols even (ab)using Certificate Transparency logs and ideas on how to append the signature (timestamp flag vs unhashed notations) so I'll be eager to hear the details on the ML @stm!