Okay, I can reproduce it when not using keyboxd.

Also, we should not forget the context of the whole dialog in the window. So we get the wording right, especially regarding key / certificate.

Removed in https://invent.kde.org/pim/kleopatra/-/merge_requests/369

In T5780#195277, @ikloecker wrote:

For me the change fixes the problem on Windows. (I haven't checked if there was a problem on Linux/X11, but I have verified that the change also works on Linux/X11.)

This is very similar to T5780 except that it concerns a different operation and thus a different window. The fix is likely the same as for T5780.

We do support "Decrypt & Verify" for multiple files (including the presentation of the status) so that it would be easy to do the same for all files in a folder (question is if this should even be recursive). Digging into the history I found that the desktop file was added shortly before Kleopatra 2.0.0-rc1, but that there wasn't any code for iterating a folder, i.e. this can never have worked.

I can't remember that we ever had support this. It is also not easy to come up with the good way to present the status for all files in a folder. We would need to define a format similar to what sha1sum uses: A list of file with they signature file or so. Note that kleopatra has support for running sha256sum in such a way.

Sorry. I can't reproduce this. Neither with master nor with the 2.4 repo version.

We don't have this exact action on windows, but the normal "Decrypt & Verify" action shows up for folders there (and doesn't work either).

All changes are pushed to master.

Pushed the changes by the commit rC2039d93289db: mpi: Add MPI helper modular exponentiation, Least Leak Intended.

the reproducer is:

I don't think this is fixed. With this patch in place, if i import blocker.cert first, and then import distsigkey.gpg, it looks to me like i still can't verify signatures made from any of the GnuPG signing keys.

Can now be tested after the release of libassuan 3.0.2 (T6163)

Released with libassuan 3.0.2 (T7163)

As I am delving a bit into cryptocurrencies and since i have a ledger security token and a bip32 24 word mnemonic now backed up as stamped metal.

"Exclusive user" sounds a bit odd and could still be misinterpreted. A native speaker would probably say "Are you the sole user of this secret key?“ or (even better and shorter) "Are you the only user of this secret key?"

Background of my "reminder" comment: we were discussing to establish a sane workflow for sharing keys. Which is quite commonly done e.g. for functional mail addresses, but usually people seem to share the whole secret key which is not advisable. We would want people to only share subkeys for that purpose.
It was the case that somebody gets a subkey for such an "offline" primary for the first time, which I was thinking of.

Details should be the first action (since it's likely the most often used action by people who don't know about double-click). And I'd move the "destructive actions" to the bottom. And there are way to many separators.

In T7502#198141, @ebo wrote:

Reminder: we have to keep in mind the workflow of the import of secret subkeys. Do we need different behavior conditional on "is primary key present" or not?

Reminder: we have to keep in mind the workflow of the import of secret subkeys. Do we need different behavior conditional on "is primary key present" or not?

With my initial suggestions, modified by: