Very few OpenPGP data signatures have an expiration time either, fwiw. I have never actually seen one in the wild, and no one that i know uses --ask-sig-expire or --default-sig-expire (it shows up in the cupt test suite and the apt test suite, but doesn't appear to be actually used by anything).

CMS signatures do not have a expiration time. Further the meaning of the expiration time of one of the certificates also depends on the validation model (shell or chain); thus a one-to-one relationship between these times is not possible.

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.

I am in charge of editing the current OpenPGP draft, so I will for sure keep an eye on that issue. If would appreciate if you can post your report also to openpgp at ietf org.

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.

It was rG07250279e7ec: * keyedit.c (keyedit_menu): Invisible alias "passwd" as "password". in 2004, which set default to rfc2440-text behavior.
And in 2007, the commit rGb550330067b6: * gpg.c (main): Disable --rfc2440-text and --force-v3-sigs by default. Enable… changed the default to no-rfc2440-text.

I see. Thanks for your explanation.

I see. Thus the problem is that IPWorksOpenPGP does not create proper OpenPGP private keys. I guess they use OpenSSL with their different CRT parameter style and do not convert them correctly. RFC-4880 says this in 5.5.3:

The secret key is this series of multiprecision integers:
o  MPI of RSA secret exponent d;
o  MPI of RSA secret prime value p;
o  MPI of RSA secret prime value q (p < q);
o  MPI of u, the multiplicative inverse of p, mod q.

At the time the verification is done some output has already been written to the file 'signed'. When checking whether the deprecated abbreviated format

The digest algorithm used is computed based on the preferences in the key if encryption is also used. Thus this should always work and any decent key has sha256 in its preferences. In case sha1 has a higher precedence, as seen on old keys, --personal-digest-preferences can be used to prefer sha256. However, it is way better to fix the key. The easisies way to do that is to change the expiration date - then the new standard preferences will be used.

Thanks so much your helps.
With new version 3.1.6, I can generate key on Kleopatra tool and use key stored in smartcard.

There was indeed a problem. With a test card I could reproduce the issue and fix it.

I contacted Microsoft Security Response Center (MSRC) in regard to this matter. They confirmed the failed PGP key verification, but have not yet any explanation for that.

What are MS doing when they get it right, though? I'd look at the differences between those two to identify what they've messed up here.

Thanks. The mail is a standard, non-crypto mail with one attachment. That attachment is a TNEF file which has according to ytnef(1) just one file. That file has the name gpgolPGP.dat and contains a clearsigned message.

Sure, I zipped the eml which failed and I´ll send it by e-mail to you

Is it possible that you upload or send me a copy of such a mail (wk gnupg.org)? ZIP or tar the eml file and send it in an encrypted mail to me to make sure it won't be modified on the transport.

I checked my mails in detail, and I can confirm that the error occurs only with "Microsoft security update releases". Indeed "Microsoft security advisory notification" and "Microsoft security update summary for..." will be verified correctly.

I agree. It also happens to me. But only with mails coming from "Microsoft security update releases". Mails coming form "Microsoft security advisory notification" and Microsoft security update summary for..." are ok and are signed by the same key. It could be some trouble in MS automated email treatment.

Fair enough. Let's wait and see what others think.

Also consider that it is possible to change the key usage flags. Thus it will never be clear whether one has a fixed or unfixed public key. I'd like to close this bug because it is currently also discussed in the IETF WG.