Yeah but it seems to be the same issue / reason. I wasn't aware that PKISSH is something else. I thought it was an extension/protocol or something

I added "Feature Request", because this is a request to support:

• A feature of bug compatibility, which is implemented wrongly in PKISSH
• for a specific algo of key, which is not considered so useful (== ECDSA)
• PKISSH, which is variant of OpenSSH

In T4563#140184, @idl0r wrote:

I was and I am using OpenSSH on both sides, client and server.

I was and I am using OpenSSH on both sides, client and server.

I do not think that we should support a fork of openssh right now. If we would support it we are bound to maintain that for years - this is not a good idea.

Well, I have no idea about the technical background to be honest but without this patch it doesn't work at all for me, unless I stop using the agent or workaround it by using SSH_AUTH_SOCK=0. With this patch, I can use the agent again. I don't know how many others are affected by this but it made it usable again, which wasn't the case for months already.

In theory, I don't think the patch gnupg.patch works. It just ignore the flag.

In T2291#140172, @gniibe wrote:

Thank you for testing.
For the issue #1, I think it is the probelm of rG1cd615afe301: gpg,card: Allow no version information of Yubikey.. This was introduced by the support of PIV feature of Yubikey.

Thank you for testing.
For the issue #1, I think it is the probelm of rG1cd615afe301: gpg,card: Allow no version information of Yubikey., which is fixed already. This was introduced by the support of PIV feature of Yubikey.

Report on some testing using master:

I am affected by the same bug and the patch seems to work for me. Login via gpg-agent with ssh support is possible again, which wasn't before, since some openssh and/or gnupg update. Not sure.

And I also did a backport to 2.2 :-) See rGa028f24136a062f55408a5fec84c6d31201b2143

In T2291#139821, @lopter wrote:

if I am running master, it is now possible to have a setup where the same encryption key is shared by and usable from multiple smart cards?

Thank you for all the work! Does it mean that, if I am running master, it is now possible to have a setup where the same encryption key is shared by and usable from multiple smart cards?

For linking the MSI installer we already need a windows host and a windows sign host. The binaries inside that package we also sign usign the signhost / signkey which can be included in an optional / custom sign.mk during the build process. By default the path to the included sign.mk is gnupg-vsd/sign.mk in the src repo. But that can be changed of course.

Done.

Okay, I usually only keep hitting crl+w in that case. But I see the point when doing imports this can be annoying.

You are right, the new 3.4 cards support brainpool curves in addition to the nist curves.

If you mean OpenPGP Card v3 standard, no it did not support cv25519 ed25519, but some other curves up until v3.4. So if there is a specific specification bringing this feature, can you might refer to the specific version? Otherwise, I think this task is still valid.
I remember the problem being the card manufacturers that are not interesting in cv25519 (yet).

Support was added in version 3 card.

As for renaming "Change Reset Code" to "Set Reset Code", what about "Change PIN" and "Change Admin PIN"? Should they also be renamed? If not, why not? Is there no default reset code? Is there a way to find out whether the reset code has already been set (in which case "change" would be more appropriate than "set")?

You write

This does not work.

Can you be more specific? What doesn't work? Which OS, which version of Kleopatra, what smartcard are you using?

I though about this too but we need to take care about the logging functions of Libgcrypt which are intertwined with nPth (clamp function of libgpg-error).

{F1982353}

Thanks. I understand the situation. Basically, gpg-agent's computation is done by a single thread (in current implementation), although it accepts many requests simultaneously.

In T5137#139066, @werner wrote:

Note that you actually run 30 independent processes with gpg 1.4 but with gpg-agent there is just one process to handle the private key operations (decrypt). To utilize more cores you need to setup several GNUPGHOME with the same private keys.

In T5137#139064, @gniibe wrote:

I think that it is not gpg-agent but pinentry which causes millions of futex syscall errors.
For interactive use case, pinentry may be the point of contention.
I might be wrong if your key is not protected by passphrase.

If possible, please try adding arguments for gpg invocation: --pinentry-mode loopback --passphrase-file YOUR_FILE_FOR_PASSPHRASE
This can avoid the invocation of pinentry entirely.

I change this to a feature request: Allow several processes to run public key decryption using the same set of private keys.

I know these troubles.

Thanks for addressing this in master.

The feature (better cross compiling) was done in master.
We close this bug report as "Won't fix" since it will never been applied to 2.2.

In newer releases of libgpg-error, libksba, libassuan, libgcrypt, npth and ntbtls, we updated corresponding *.m4, so that we can use new gpgrt-config program only. And gpgrt-config command supports cross compiling and multiarch libraries.

FWIW, --enforce-passphrase-constraints does already work for symmetric-only encryption since 2.2.21 (rGae8b88c635424ef3). Thus this bug is actually a feature request to have a separate set of passphrase constraints option for symmetric-only mode.

Indeed we need to fix/enhance this to make testing of --quick-revoke-sig easier. See over at T5093

I recall that I had the same bug during development. Must have slipped in again - Good catch.

I have added support for this to gpgme (and gpgme++/qgpgme). See T5094.

By the way, --quick-sign-key after --quick-revoke-sig refuses to recertify the key. -> T4584

There is another problem: Even if the first certification was revoked, trying to add a new certification with --quick-sign-key fails because '"user id" was already signed by key ...'

I found a bug. To reproduce generate a new key, then sign it with another key and then try to quick-revoke the signatures. This fails with "Not signed by you."

On purpose. We actually allow user ids and gpg should somehow reflect this. As requested by you I changed it in the man page to what is suggested.

I've noticed an inconsistency between the command arguments in the man page and in the usage/error message.

The backend part is ready. Someone(tm) now needs to add it to gpgme. Extending the sign key API might be the best solution.

I was already considering this. I bet some people will view it as a bug if it is possible to add something other than a fingerprint. I'll change it in the man page.

Minor remark: I would change this (in the documentation) to

gpg --quick-revoke-sig fpr fpr-of-signing-key [names]

as for --quick-sign-key, --quick-add-key, and --quick-set-expire, even if USER IDs can be used instead of fingerprints. We shouldn't advertise the usage of USER IDs, if we prefer the users to use the fingerprints. I suggest to also change user-id to fpr in the documentation of --quick-add-uid and --quick-revoke-uid. Using USER IDs for identifying keys is ambiguous and errorprone (e.g. if non-ASCII characters get involved, which, incidentally, is the reason why I started to work on KMail).

gcc also warns about missing arguments and hopefully also if the arg for %n is not an int*.
You may need to enable these warnings which we do at least in maintainer-mode. On Windows some of the warnings might be wrong because mingw assumes the MS implementation.

Fair enough with regards to portability, and this is not a hill I will die on, but can you comment on the security concerns of using %n?

Nope %n works on all implementations I am aware of. It has to because it is part of even C90.

Hi Werner,

Sorry, it is entirely non-sense to ban useful printf features. Also note that we use our own printf implementation to avoid portability problems with for example "%zu". If you have a problem with any of the uses of "%n", please explain the problem.

Hello,
I finished the Italian translation of the GnuPg 2.2 file.
I need help, can you please update the source project with this translation? I am a beginner, unable to do this.
I attach files translated into Italian

We do have an Italian translation but it is quite outdated:

Hello Werner,

@werner can you confirm if the environment I provided will work with OpenSSH support fully implemented?

I am sorry, but I do not understand your request. Please give real commands as examples.
You known that you can always use --output FILENAME to force a certain file name?

I also don't want to leave my card in the reader authenticated for a full day, it just doesn't sound like a good practice to me. I also very often just forget about the card, so it just sits there, keys open for use.

Using a not yet existing directory is a security feature. The directory is created at a time the signature has not yet been verified and thus it would be too easy to trick a user into overwriting important data.

--locate-external-keys exists since 2.2.17 and ignores the local keys.