engl. Menu Entry: Save Secret Role Key
Tooltip: Save this secret key to share with other team members.

Discussion and background for naming things and german translation

For the icon:

lgtm on gpg4win-beta167@win10

We decided to

@TobiasFella: please ping on screenshot in MR

Vorschlag Text:

The first call of get_key receives the following key listing from gpg:

2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: sec:-:256:19:C4A24EB0B5F2E025:1746474606:::u:::s
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: cESCA:::D2760001240100000006180489130000::brainp
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: oolP256r1:23::0:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: fpr:::::::::DEC0948C398A6E7B50746EC6C4A24EB0B5F2
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: E025:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: grp:::::::::06BDACFBDEDBC5783A75AE5E7251FA3369C4
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: 0FF4:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: uid:-::::1746474606::2222D8E2F373B9BDEE0DEA2A20A
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: 9402214E9F984::Eric <eric@bktus.com>::::::::::0:
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: <LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: ssb:-:256:19:EAFC5EA29B758B22:1746474606::::::a:
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: ::D2760001240100000006180489130000::brainpoolP25
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: 6r1:23:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: fpr:::::::::1AD596DDEC9B8CF3C1AC6C41EAFC5EA29B75
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: 8B22:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: grp:::::::::52F0797C0B0439BBD718E2534D46656A6C45
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: 6A78:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: ssb:-:256:18:A874804DB497B91C:1746474606::::::e:
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: ::#::brainpoolP256r1:23:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: fpr:::::::::33B273C7BD46E4EB63DD6874A874804DB497
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: B91C:<LF>
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: grp:::::::::34A1F8D9B2AA0CF07C2E042D70E10F9D4EBE
2025-05-05 21:50:23 gpgme[57059]     _gpgme_io_read: check: E734:<LF>

Note the line

ssb:-:256:18:A874804DB497B91C:1746474606::::::e:::#::brainpoolP256r1:23:<LF>

where the # marks the subkey as stub.

Right now we have

Interesting, that sounds like a portable method. I am not very familiar with GPG internals, but to me that sounds like quite a bit of work. Unless there is another benefit to doing so, I don't think it is worth it just to print signal names.

Yep, I wrote a small client and server just to verify that it is functional.

I have now identified the exact conditions and a reproducible path for the issue I previously reported. I will also attach the relevant gpgme.log.

I doubt that this is a gpgme problem. With a gpgme log we will be able see the exact commands send to gpg and replicate this on the command line.

Should be fixed.

For gpgme 2 we changed the data types of the time fields to unsigned: rMf2d40473b522e348d96a70c089d2191d0b978098 . Since this change breaks the ABI we use the above change for the 1.24 branch.

And the US administration might even change the definition of a year to, say, 100 months so that potus can rightfully keep his promise that there won't be more election in the foreseeable future ;-)

merged

Add news

Looks good. Please also add the new flags to the NEWS file (similar to what Werner wrote in https://dev.gnupg.org/rMcd79fc39736fda6ce38f1f79700cf658c47372f9).

By the way, "years" is also "incorrect" once in ~4 years because it uses n*365 days. Werner's advice still applies. Enter an ISO date if you want an exact date. Or use a UI tool like Kleopatra.

tested @ikloecker

The following patch for gpgme 1.24 should fix the test.

diff --git a/lang/cpp/src/key.cpp b/lang/cpp/src/key.cpp
index 42046aa..2b14d90 100644
--- a/src/key.cpp
+++ b/src/key.cpp
@@ -633,7 +633,7 @@ time_t Subkey::creationTime() const

I did a local change (on amdahl.d.o) changing _gpgme_subkey.expires to long long (ABI-break) and all tests succeeded.

It looks like the entirety of gpgme timestamping was missed when the 64bit time transition happened in Debian and Ubuntu.

This looks like a problem in gpgme. struct _gpgme_subkey stores the expiration date as long int expires which is a signed 32-bit value on all 32-bit architectures. gpgmepp casts this to time_t, but that doesn't help if the 32-bit value is already negative. The same problem exists with all other timestamps in gpgme (i.e. key creation date, signature expiration date, etc.).

This issue does not occur on master, only on 2.2 and 2.4 branches.

But the function works and returns the peer's credentials?

The main problem here was that this all is not async-safe and thus I once implemented only the standard cases I could test easily.

The logs of gpgme would be helpful, i.e. run your test program with GPGME_DEBUG=8:$(pwd)/gpgme-$(date +"%Y-%m-%d-%H%M%S").log to create a log file with gpgme's logs.

For the records:

A bug tracker shall never be used for discussion because the audience is not as expected. Only very few people follow a certain bug but several hundreds are following discussion on gnupg-devel@. That is basic hacker knowledge.

I am surprised that you don't want to use the issue tracker for issues.
GnuPG's trust calculations are quite clearly broken, by any metric. There's nothing to discuss here.

Heiko, I told you already in T7106 that it is not a good idea to re-open a ticket. If you really want to discuss stuff, take that to a mailing list.

I see two interesting angles from which to think about this Web of Trust calculation:

A brief update: This feature has not made it onto the roadmap of specific things to implement so far.

There was another customer wish for this, RT #34722