I am still not sure why I noticed the double signing but with the new stamp feature we have an effective way to avoid long delays due to authenticode signing. Some gmake macro guru might want to look at gpg4win.mk.in to get rid of the duplicate rule ignore messages.

And we should also use timestamps for each signed file so that we don't need to re-sign all of them over and over during build process tweaking.

What happens if you call gpgtar with --utf8-strings --cms additionally to the other options? And what happens if you pipe the archive to gpgtar's stdin?

Right. I think this task inherited the assignee from its parent task.

It could have been discussed whether this makes sense. However, we can't change it anymore because it would change the behaviour. Consider a cron job which looks into a directory with keyids and imports them from a keyserver. It is totally fine if the script returns success if no keys are available.

I have also not found a straightforward way to correct a cross-signature that was made with a weak digest algorithm using GnuPG.

Oh wow. It seems you have already coded the feature request. I didn't want to generate work for you and offered to submit a patch. Not that I am complaining.;-) Thank you!

Those options where originally intended for debugging but your suggestion makes sense. I also add this to most other tools.

Removing gpgrt because we meanwhile have full utf-8 support there.

Closing due to age and because gpg4win 4 started to using the much improved GnuPG 2.4

The solution seems to be a newer libccid version. If that is the case we may want to include the fix also in our own ccid driver.

Got this from my card vendor. Sonoma had a buggy CCID driver; compile one yourself and the bug's gone: https://forums.developer.apple.com/forums/thread/732091?answerId=768462022#768462022

Since there are some files that would simply have to be created each time under $GNUPGHOME, I've been thinking a bit more about what sort of approach to take for "fallbacks."

No, I am not aware. I can't remember whether PGP once had such a bug because @dshaw did most cross-testing and fixing for PGP bugs. I would suggest to remove any such checks. IIRC, this was introduced by PGP 2 to speed up signature checking. 30 years ago RSA operations were quite expensive.

That is simply because your XDG_RUNTIME is set to the same directory gnupg uses. See gnupg/common/homedir.c:_gnupg_socketdir_internal

Funnily enough, runtime sockets already adhere to the XDGBDS somewhat by using $XDG_RUNTIME_DIR/gnupg as their path, while everything else uses strictly $GNUPGHOME or ~/.gnupg with no other alternative. Of course, I completely understand that the priority for this is rather low, but I am still happy to look into providing a patch myself that would add these fallbacks if it would help expedite the whole process.

In master, I applied changes for include files which don't harm current target of MinGW-64.

This is referenced from https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-3219 for CVE-2022-3219. Can this please be fixed?

I think we can close this issue. Ikloecker explained why. The hint comes from the help files and I think at the time I opened the issue I did not use the help messages.

Ingo, I concede it might be considered a bug on Request Tracker that it does not allow to specify the key as a fingerprint (or calculates it automatically from the email instead of relying on gpg doing it), but you generally want to keep expired keys around for decryption.

Quite frankly, if a third party application calls gpg with anything other than fingerprints to specify keys it's asking for trouble. I have changed KMail from using user IDs to using fingerprints when calling gpg more than 20 years ago.

Sorry, Werner, but I have to disagree on this. Specifying them by fingerprint only works if you have a specific field for the key (including the case where you are just it on the config file).

Instead of tweaking this and risk a regression for some users I added a suggested to the man page to use a fingerprint.

Unfortunately there are real world applications which make use of this option in special environments. Thus we can't remove it. I improved the warning in the man page.

There will be a 2.2.43 soonish. Thanks for the patch.

Thanks. Applied to 2.4 will eventually be merged into master.

This was reported again 3 years later as T4704, and finally fixed in gnupg-2.4.4, released last week.

Thanks! We will try this out and update you with the results.

Since 2.2.20 we had these items in the NEWS

Fixed in GnuPG 2.4.4.

I upgraded to gnupg 1.4.4 now, the problem is gone. Thanks for working.

Thanks @gniibe and everybody!

Fixed in GnuPG 2.4.4.

In T6481#181779, @gniibe wrote:

Arch Linux: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/gnupg
FreeBSD: https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/security/gnupg

I don't see the patch is applied. Please wait for GnuPG release 2.4.4.

Indeed, openSUSE has applied the patch: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE%3AFactory/gpg2

Arch Linux: https://gitlab.archlinux.org/archlinux/packaging/packages/gnupg
FreeBSD: https://cgit.freebsd.org/ports/tree/security/gnupg

Works as expected on openSUSE Tumbleweed with gpg2-2.4.3-4.2.x86_64:

$ gpg2 --version
gpg (GnuPG) 2.4.3
libgcrypt 1.10.3
[...]

In T6481#181724, @gniibe wrote:

i still observe the same behavior:

What do you mean? I can't replicate the behavior described by you, using the GnuPG from the repo, or the one of Debian 2.4.3-2.

i still observe the same behavior:

In T6481#171399, @gniibe wrote:

• It is also possible for GnuPG to keep the behavior of 2.4.0, so that it doesn't confuse EasyPG.
  • This is a possible solution #2: change in master: rG2f872fa68c65: gpg: Report BEGIN_* status before examining the input.
  • But... it is difficult for implementation of GnuPG to guarantee this kind of behavior.

For a while, distributions can apply rG2f872fa68c65 for 2.4 series.

I do not think this is a very common usecase. For me regarding CMS file operations it would be more important to implement T2435: gpgsm combined sign and encrypt which I find the most annyoing issue regarding CMS file encryption.

Way to late for a change and also adding another algorithm (SIV) complicates things for no good purposes.

This either requires an updated libassuan which allows "INPUT FILE=foo" in addition to INPUT FD=n" or using custom handlers in for INPUT et al. in gpgsm. I'd prefer the former. Anoter option would be to open and close the file in ggpgme and pass the fd.

Already done with rG89c7eccba51554 which will be in the next VSD release.

Note that we now have also an option instead of the workaround from 2015

It would be good to apply this to 2.2, so adding "backport" tag.

One use case that seems sensible to me is to try to convince a long-running operation (e.g. a sequence of key generations) to all use a single timestamp. In this scenario, there's no interest in setting the clock to be some variant of the current time, just an interest in it remaining fixed across all the operations.

GnuPG 2.2 and 2.4 now have --pcsc-shared option for a user who can control his action in detail.
So, closing this bug report.

Thank you for the bug report. Although it's a corner case, it is a discrepancy in the implementation which results unrecoverable situation of the device.

That was my fault in commit rG8fc9de8d6bf663f7c8419b42dab01f590a694d59 obviously I assumed that the macros were always used.

@aheinecke as promised, attached some test vectors:

This has always worked on the client site since we implemented keyserver access.

I see no problem to return only revocation packets. Clients must verify them anyway against their public keys and the fingerprint makes this easy. Verification against a primary key delivered along the revocation is more or less useless because that primary key must anyway been looked up in the client's keyring and th local existance of a primary key is anyway required to ask a keyserver for a revocation.

The trick here is that during import gpg tracks those invalid signatures and then tries to apply them to other keys.

Appended. Yes, it is considered an invalid signature and ignored. Anyone can insert an invalid signature. The trick here is that during import gpg tracks those invalid signatures and then tries to apply them to other keys. The use case here is this:

If you need the fingerprint, why don't you take it from the revocation certificate - for many years it is in subpacket 33.

In T6900#180549, @andrewgdotcom wrote:

Hi, Andre.
...

Thanks for the explanation. To me this sounds very reasonable and I think that I am starting to better understand your use case in Hockeypuck.
Having a test example key + the intended revocation update would help at least me to dig into it a bit and see how this might conflict with RFC4880.

I'm curious about the parsing implications of this bit:

Well, the quoted paragraph ended with a

Individual UID revocation sigs are not particularly useful, because they cannot be validated without the original UID. Such things are out of scope.

Hi,
so I talked to werner about this, and of course GnuPG accepts minimal revocations.
A revocation certificate. So that was my point. As he understood you, you wanted to revoke not the whole key but only a single user id but without the user id packet? Sorry I am not really the protocol expert. But for me a revoked key without any user ids sounds to me just like a "standard" revocation certificate revoking the whole key. And as said, that is well within the the Standard and accepted, and even used by GnuPG. E.g. in case of a keyrollover we attach such a minimal revocation certificate to WKD keys when we deliver key updates.