Friendly ping @werner
- Queries
- All Stories
- Search
- Advanced Search
- Transactions
- Transaction Logs
Advanced Search
Nov 10 2021
Mar 11 2020
Oct 25 2017
Thanks!
Oct 22 2017
Same issue exists in 2.2:
Jul 3 2017
Hi @420Dreamin - you just "fixed" the typo I was trying to demonstrate :/
Jul 2 2017
Jun 23 2017
Any updates / thoughts on how this might be fixed?
Dec 4 2016
It's been a year since last update. Still an issue. Maybe someone should send
an email to gnupg-commits-owner@gnupg.org ?
Mar 19 2016
I took a look at the source code and now understand what is going on here.
The code indicates: One or more secret keys (primary or sub) were found.
But the UI message suggests that the secret key of the current (primary) key was
found, hence my confusion.
Here are some ideas:
- EASY: Update the message to indicate it is generic and not specific to the key
being edited.
OR
- HARDER: Improve the logic so the message is specific to the key being edited.
Thoughts?
Mar 18 2016
Here you go:
My master key is offline and I have subkeys on a Yubikey. As expected, I see sec# when listing keys when using the
online system:
gpg -K
sec# 4096R/2FFA7695 2016-02-01 [expires: 2020-01-31]
uid NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS.COM>
ssb> 2048R/EA7CCF1B 2016-02-01
ssb> 2048R/1E8DA9B9 2016-02-01
ssb> 2048R/5BA60C24 2016-02-01
However, when I go into edit mode, gpg indicates that the "Secret is available":
gpg --edit-key 2FFA7695
gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.19; Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Secret key is available.
pub 4096R/2FFA7695 created: 2016-02-01 expires: 2020-01-31 usage: C
trust: ultimate validity: ultimate
sub 2048R/EA7CCF1B created: 2016-02-01 expires: 2018-01-31 usage: S
sub 2048R/1E8DA9B9 created: 2016-02-01 expires: 2018-01-31 usage: E
sub 2048R/5BA60C24 created: 2016-02-01 expires: 2018-01-31 usage: A
[ultimate] (1). NAME <EMAIL@ADDRESS.COM>
[ultimate] (2) [jpeg image of size 1234]
Tested with several recent versions of GnuPG. Am I misunderstanding this message?
Mar 16 2016
Bug system broke the link URL. Here is a shorter one:
http://security.stackexchange.com/q/115230/16036