The LDAP code is actually in very bad shape because @neal added it without utilizing the ldap wrapper and thus a timeout won't work reliable.

Unusable v6 interfaces are now detected on Windows and then not used.

The manual states that --standard-resolver is mostly for debugging. The reason you get an "not enabled" is that we can't allow direct DNS queries in Tor mode which would happen with the system (standard) DNS resolver.

See also D475.

Ping.

There is a growing bit of popular lore in the GnuPG community that "when keyserver operations fail, you solve that problem with killall dirmngr." I believe this suggestion is potentially damaging (the long-running daemon may be in the middle of operations for a client that you don't know about), but i suspect it is circulating as advice because it resolves the situation outlined in this ticket. For whatever ephemeral reason, dirmngr gets stuck, and fails to notice that this situation has resolved itself.

GnuPG ships a non-PKI certificate, specifically to authenticate hkps.pool.sks-keyservers.net. Now due to an implementation detail, this has been shown to potentially lead to authentication of other domains by this certificate, if a maintainer changes the default keyserver via the DIRMNGR_DEFAULT_KEYSERVER variable in configure.ac. Now arguably, this variable isn't exposed via ./configure, so it's not "officially" configurable - but evidently maintainers do want to change it. A trivial one-line patch was supplied to change the unintended and potentially security-problematic behavior into the (I believe) obviously intended one.

$ gpg-connect-agent --dirmngr 'getinfo version' /bye
D 2.2.17
OK

Can you check which dirmngr version you are running

gpg-connect-agent --dirmngr 'getinfo version' /bye

thanks for the dns explanation - IMHO, there should be added something about that in the wiki
When it does not work for you on http1 either, then I guess, it's really just some outdatedness of my gpg/dirmngr and this ticket can be closed.

It does not work either. Your problem is the use of a wildcard DNS for archlinux32.org:

The test above was with gpg master but I got the same result with current 2.2:

ok, I disabled it again. btw: why do we need openpgpkey.archlinux32.org in the cert? Is this standard or did I misconfigure something?

Thanks. Here is a dirmngr log:

I set archlinux32.org back to http2 - so you can see for yourself, how gpg fails to retrieve the key for buildmaster@archlinux32.org

I believe, it means, that it may fall back to http1.1 - the documentation is not clear to me on this.
A simple test however shows, that at least curl has no problems to use http1.1 or http1.0 with the http2 enabled nginx.

Does your ngix configuration mean that there is no fallback to standard http?

In T2300#90092, @aheinecke wrote:

Ah nevermind. I think myself that this is nobug and current behavior is correct.

To implement / test the "not literally RFC compliant but in practice better" behavior let us call this now a wish and feature request as there are certificates in the wild other then intevation's and customers in large institutions run into that.

Will be in 2.2.18

WKD and DANE/OPENPGPKEY offer rather distinct properties. I'd be hard-pressed to say that one is "better" than the other without understanding the threat model and concerns of the evaluator:

DNSSEC is a centralized CA system. Just different than the TLS one. Given that Certificate Transparency exists I'd say DNSSEC is less transparent than TLS. For example if you happen to have a .ly domain then the Libyan can silently control your signed zone. Given that there is no CT for DNSSEC they can do so selectively, for any connection they want. It wouldn't be the first problem with them.

In T4618#128103, @wiktor-k wrote:

I'm left wondering: are there cases where OPENPGPKEY would be preferred over WKD?

Just a note that we're now shipping this patch in debian unstable. It would be great if it was merged upstream.

I see. I am also mostly testing with ntbtls so I was wondering about the report. Thanks for reporting and fixing.

While I understand incorrectness, the risk in practice is not that high. So, I put this as "normal" priority.

Pushed the change to master as well as 2.2 branch.

Is this really necessary to duplicate functionality that already is provided by Web Key Directory?

With NTBTLS, it seems it works correctly.

I agree, many currently-shipped DNS client library implementations do not provide DNSSEC validity checks.

Sure it is not validated. Standard clients do not provide the system features to do that. That is one of the problems with DNSSEC adoption - it works only for servers in practice.

Ah, that makes sense, good catch. Seems this is just an issue of documentation, then.

And of course, thanks for your fix.

Applied to both branches. I have run no tests myself, though.