I pushed the change to master.

Fixed in master.

I would prefer to have a procedure that do not reset PINs to their default values, but as long as all PINs are set to known and valid values when KDF is setup it will not make the token unusable after that, so it seems reasonable to me.

Or, #5 would be:

@Amaud, I read your code in Python. IIUC, it asks users PW1, Reset Code, and PW3 to setup, just before registering KDF DO (as you describe in https://dev.gnupg.org/T3891#114950).

Thanks for concrete cases. Sorry, not responding earlier. It was an experimental feature, firstly only available in Gnuk Token.

I implemented the script described previsouly (https://dev.gnupg.org/T3891#114950) in the smartpgp-cli utility provided in the SmartPGP repository (see commit https://github.com/ANSSI-FR/SmartPGP/commit/4be0fa442b43c2bafd5f0171417ff68fd88cbe2d).

Some users of ours wanted to use KDF with their OpenPGP smart cards. Could you tell when solution to this issue could be expected?
Additionally, is there any workaround for the current state? Perhaps based on T3823, or on derived [1]? To which values the PINs had to be set?

There is no use cases for $SIGNKEYID.

$ENCRKEYID use case have been removed.

Caching of the OpenPGP PIN while switching to and from PIV does now work in master

$AUTHKEYID use cases have been removed.

Considering the concrete use case(s), it is more rational to support listing by capability.

This is actually unused code and it will never be called with ERR == 0. Will fix it in master anway.

[ Please do not post each compiler warning as a single report. That is just just too much overhead and we do see such messages ourselves if you would provide a bit more information. ]

This will be in 2.2.18, closing.

Sorry, it was simply my confusion (between GEMPC_PINPAD and GEMPC_EZIO).
Fixed now.

Please test. When I can confirm that it is stable, I'll backport it to 2.2.

@gniibe oh, I see thanks for pointing out precisely main the problem. I will check the hardware supply chain RoHS 2002/95/EC

@pow, thanks for a reference. But problem here is that there are multiple products with same name.

For pinpadtest.py, you need to offer an option --add (adding dummy byte), when you are using Cherry ST-2xxx.

For pinpadtest.py, you need to offer an option --add (adding dummy byte), when you are using Cherry ST-2xxx.

It is not supported, by CCID protocol itself. So, it is not supported by scdaemon, and by any of card readers (which I know of), either.

It is not supported, by CCID protocol itself. So, it is not supported by scdaemon, and by any of card readers (which I know of), either.

Note that rGd3f5d8544fdb needs to be backported to 2.2 but we will wait until we have better tested it.

The card was replaced by the vendor. It seems to be a problem with the specific card. All other cards so far worked well. The issue can be closed.

I see your point (I am also the one who implements reader/token). That's reasonable argument.

Thanks for clarification.
However, CCID_CMD_TIMEOUT should be then based on BWT value reported by the card/reader, as bulk_in() function will still timeout if BWT is longer than 5 seconds.

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

I realized that it's a product of token. Then, I suggest that implementing time extension correctly, if some operation doesn't finish in BWT (block waiting time).

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

What's Trustica Cryptoucan?
In general, if it requires more time, a reader can reply with time extension.

FYI, we have "factory-reset" command in gpg --card-edit; It is not enough for a card to have admin locked state, but it requires normal user locked state, too.

I applied the following with gpg-connect-agent --hex:

I do not wonder, that you face difficulties to reproduce it. It happened only with one card from my six cards; so five cards working fine. Therefore, I thought that this particular card was may dead at arrival and I contacted the vendor. They refused to replace it with the comment, it would be a well known issue. Do you know a test where I can demonstrate that the card is dead at arrival?

It responds somehow, but the content has invalid data of (bChainParameter=0x04):

2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: chan_17 -> S LOGIN-DATA aheinecke
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: PC_to_RDR_XfrBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 9
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 21
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bBWI ..............: 0x04
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   wLevelParameter ...: 0x0000
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0010]  00 40 05 00 CA 00
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0016]  6E 00 E1
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: RDR_to_PC_DataBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 4
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 21
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bStatus ...........: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bChainParameter ...: 0x04
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0010]  00 82 00 82
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: PC_to_RDR_XfrBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 9
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 22
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bBWI ..............: 0x04
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   wLevelParameter ...: 0x0000
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0010]  00 40 05 00 CA 00
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0016]  6E 00 E1
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: RDR_to_PC_DataBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 4
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 22
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bStatus ...........: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bChainParameter ...: 0x04
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0010]  00 82 00 82
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: PC_to_RDR_XfrBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 9
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 23
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bBWI ..............: 0x04
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   wLevelParameter ...: 0x0000
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0010]  00 40 05 00 CA 00
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   [0016]  6E 00 E1
2019-07-05 09:36:46 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: usb_bulk_read error: LIBUSB_ERROR_TIMEOUT
2019-07-05 09:36:46 scdaemon[71407] ccid_transceive failed: (0x1000a)
2019-07-05 09:36:46 scdaemon[71407] apdu_send_simple(1) failed: card I/O error

After the cancellation, the card reader seems being screwed up:

It is canceled:

2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: RDR_to_PC_DataBlock:
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   dwLength ..........: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSlot .............: 0
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bSeq ..............: 19
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bStatus ...........: 64
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver:   bError ............: 239
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: ccid-driver: CCID command failed: PIN cancelled
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: dismiss pinpad entry prompt
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: chan_7 -> INQUIRE DISMISSPINPADPROMPT
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: chan_7 <- END
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] verify CHV2 failed: Invalid response
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] operation decipher result: Invalid response
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] app_decipher failed: Invalid response
2019-07-05 09:36:41 scdaemon[71407] DBG: chan_7 -> ERR 100663372 Invalid response <SCD>

Please note that key generation is takes time unusually longer from a viewpoint of card reader.
It is possible for a card reader to give up the execution of key generation command as timeout.

I am trying to reproduce your problem with my 3.3 card using my TTXS card reader.

I use the internal driver.

Are you using pcscd (is that process running) or the internal driver.? Please try the latter if you are not already using it.

I pushed my change of rGc51a5685554a: scd: ccid-driver: Initial getting ATR more robustly..
With TTXS, scdaemon correctly recovers from the error.

When the computer is going to suspend, the scdaemon receives a message from USB layer as the interrupt transfer is shutting down, then scdaemon considers it's removal of device/card.
But in case of suspend (and the device does not support USB suspend), USB port is kept with the power.
So, it keeps running actually.

Here are results of my experiment with Intel NUC computer (which supports S4 (and S3)).

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.

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

Thanks a lot @gniibe for this change.
I do understand and share your concerns, nevertheless are there, in my opinion valid reasons to be able to have a backup or duplicate, especially on the same or similar media type.
Consider for example giving multiple devices a chance of common interaction, using the keys for backup encryption etc. - I think there are several possible use-cases which can benefit from this.

I see the regression of gpgconf. I wonder if it's better to fix gpgconf side, too.

I see a regression with your fix. This option is even controllable with gpgconf at the basic level. It would be better to make it a dummy option.

I meant, 'card-timeout' was not intended for controlling caching PIN on card. It was for "DISCONNECT" command support.
I'm going to remove questionable documentation.
Closing.

While it's not recommended, current master has a support of sharing same raw key materials. I think that it now works (I don't try, though).
Closing.

Simply sending "KILLSCD" is implemented.

In master, I pushed a change, closing.

For future, it would make sense applying your patch, but I wonder if it works on macOS.
Let me check.

When having a backup media, I'd recommend completely different one (for example, on paper using paperkey to be stored in a locker in basement), which requires different method for recovering. Brains may be easily confused when same private key material exists in multiple similar devices.

Thanks for this @gniibe. I have long been frustrated by trying to save the correct "stubs" to have my keyring point at two different smartcards. It was common and even advocated in my former community to place one's master key on a separate smartcard (certify capability), with a different one designated for daily usage.

Thanks Gniibe San for explanation.

@blades: This feature will be available in GnuPG 2.3, which is planed to be released this year.
For Debian, Buster will come with GnuPG 2.2.12. After release of GnuPG 2.3, backport might be available (like GnuPG 2.2.x is available as backport for Stretch).

Helo and forgive me for the ignorance, Iam a new.
I subscribed to this topic because I need a fix like that, I have 2 yubikeys with same subkeys...
Now how is possible to install from master; It's about a debian based distro. Also, when this will be pushed for updates via apt-get;
Thank you.

We do not support 64 bit Windows thus this problem on Cygwin is obvious. Funny that Cygwin falls back to native Windows object in this case.

I did lot of tests in the last weeks while working on gpg-card.

Good that it works again for you.