Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
Hi veedal, On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 15:20:33 -0400, vedaal via Gnupg-users wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > > > > > That is the reason why i like to sign the .pdf, containing my key > > data, with a qualified eIDAS conform signature. The detached GnuPG > > sig should be an additional info, that matches the key data in the > > document. > > = > > This will work well in that if the signature verifies, then the > information in the .pdf can be considered reliable. > > It is, however, very easy for a MITM attack to 'break' the signature > by very subtly altering the pdf. > > > Try this: > > [1] Take your finished pdf and select all the text and copy it into a > new Libre Office document. > > [2] At the end of your text, just add a period. > > [3] Use Libre Office's font coloring to change the color of the added > period to white. > > [4] Export this new document as a pdf with the same file name as your > original pdf, and the same metadata. > > [5] The pdf looks exactly the same, but the signature will no longer > verify. > > > I don't trust a detached, signed pdf > (Again, I do, if it verifies, but am not sure if it doesn't verify). > > A simple, but slightly tedious workaround, would be to GnuPG Armor > Sign the .pdf > > The elDAS signature will still work, but the Armored Signed message > is much harder to alter, and such alteration is detectable as > malicious rather than a 'mistake. Thank you very much for this valuable information, much appreciated! It is now a bit late, but i will try this out tomorrow. > Also, > If you are planning to post your public keyblock in this pdf, please > be aware that pdf treats a line return as empty whitespace, so when > trying to import the key, GnuPG does not recognize the empty > whitespace, and reads the version line as continuous with the > keyblock, and it won't import. The idea was to only publish the key data from an output like gpg --check-sigs, which should give a user enough data. Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas pgpt9SBKQdNCS.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > That is the reason why i like to sign the .pdf, containing my key > data, with a qualified eIDAS conform signature. The detached GnuPG > sig should be an additional info, that matches the key data in the > document. = This will work well in that if the signature verifies, then the information in the .pdf can be considered reliable. It is, however, very easy for a MITM attack to 'break' the signature by very subtly altering the pdf. Try this: [1] Take your finished pdf and select all the text and copy it into a new Libre Office document. [2] At the end of your text, just add a period. [3] Use Libre Office's font coloring to change the color of the added period to white. [4] Export this new document as a pdf with the same file name as your original pdf, and the same metadata. [5] The pdf looks exactly the same, but the signature will no longer verify. I don't trust a detached, signed pdf (Again, I do, if it verifies, but am not sure if it doesn't verify). A simple, but slightly tedious workaround, would be to GnuPG Armor Sign the .pdf The elDAS signature will still work, but the Armored Signed message is much harder to alter, and such alteration is detectable as malicious rather than a 'mistake. Also, If you are planning to post your public keyblock in this pdf, please be aware that pdf treats a line return as empty whitespace, so when trying to import the key, GnuPG does not recognize the empty whitespace, and reads the version line as continuous with the keyblock, and it won't import. vedaal ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 20:14:19 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote: > On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote: > > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > > those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. > > I, for one, like the OpenPGP's approach of "choose your own trust > model". Someone will trust Governikus, someone will trust random > internet people, someone will marginally trust them or a selected set > of people they think are trustworthy. (By the way too bad that > Governikus doesn't add Policy URLs to their signatures [0], it would > be easier to read about their procedures for people that don't know > them). Well, i like GnuPG too because you can use and run it on an off-line computer for example. But, like i said the signatures, in all the years i have used GnuPG, have no weight for me except for cryptographically securing documents content or files from tampering, from people which i personally don't know, when it comes to the classical WoT. I think it is also very sad, that after all the years, afaik only Governikus offers such a service. I am not aware of any other CA in in the world which work the same. > Of course, this comes at the expense of user friendliness but there > are already easier trust alternatives in GnuPG (e.g. TOFU). Yes, in CLI mode, when using not a MUA, i use TOFU too and think it is a very nice addition. Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On 01.11.2018 11:19, stefan.cl...@posteo.de wrote: > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. I, for one, like the OpenPGP's approach of "choose your own trust model". Someone will trust Governikus, someone will trust random internet people, someone will marginally trust them or a selected set of people they think are trustworthy. (By the way too bad that Governikus doesn't add Policy URLs to their signatures [0], it would be easier to read about their procedures for people that don't know them). Of course, this comes at the expense of user friendliness but there are already easier trust alternatives in GnuPG (e.g. TOFU). On 01.11.2018 16:09, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote:> This isn't the Problem at alöl. X.509 is a really good standard. I use > it mysqld really often for signing PDFs or some other things. Do you mean X.509 is technically good or just more widely supported in software than OpenPGP? For me there are only few cases where X.509 infrastructure has something that OpenPGP lacks (e.g. timestamping). Kind regards, Wiktor [0]: https://keyserver.ubuntu.com/pks/lookup?op=vindex=0xAFCDE102C7FAAD6E -- https://metacode.biz/@wiktor ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On 1 Nov 2018, at 18:32, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote: > > Oh, you have also this issue? IO read about it in a Facebook group. > Libreoffice is complaining about a bad signature with Zertificates from > D-Trust even after importing the root. When you have the same problem, > they seem to be doing something that's not compliant to the standard May just be stumbling over a specific extension. We had to do https://github.com/dirkx/openssl-AdmissionSyntax a few years ago for a few edgecases at D-Trust. Dw ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 19:23:04 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk via Gnupg-users wrote: Hi Dirk, > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > I am also *very much* interested what infos users in the U.S., > > Canada, > > U.K. and Ireland, for example, see (is the certificate Info > > displayed in > > English?) when verifying my document with Adobe Reader DC! > > It depends on their locale. The object descriptors would be shown in > the set language for the locale. The values are shown as they are set > in the certificate. Thanks for the info! Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas pgpw0moeRCI1q.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
Hi Stefan. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 18:49 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > I am also *very much* interested what infos users in the U.S., > Canada, > U.K. and Ireland, for example, see (is the certificate Info displayed > in > English?) when verifying my document with Adobe Reader DC! It depends on their locale. The object descriptors would be shown in the set language for the locale. The values are shown as they are set in the certificate. Regards, Dirk -- Dirk Gottschalk Paulusstrasse 6-8 52064 Aachen, Germany GPG: DDCB AF8E 0132 AA54 20AB B864 4081 0B18 1ED8 E838 Keybase.io: https://keybase.io/dgottschalk GitHub: https://github.com/Dirk1980ac signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 18:32:58 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 17:42 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas: > > I am not able to verify a qualified eIDAS conform X.509 sig, which > > i can create now, with LibreOffice, nor with other tools, except > > Adobe Reader DC or with the mentioned web site link. Have you or > > someone else actually tried to verify my greetings.pdf on my keybase > > page? > > > If so i am really interested in the results from various tools! > > Oh, you have also this issue? IO read about it in a Facebook group. > Libreoffice is complaining about a bad signature with Zertificates > from D-Trust even after importing the root. When you have the same > problem, they seem to be doing something that's not compliant to the > standard. Another Argument against using this cert, IMHO. All other > certificates work well in Libreoffice in my case. I don't have a > D-Trust signed file to check the problem. But I am interested in > doing so, if I could get such file. > > PDFSign is another tool that could be tried. Hi Dirk, i am no expert (yet) with this whole new stuff, but i am pretty sure that D-Trust certs are 100 percent compliant, or otherwise Adobe Reader DC or the mentioned web site in my previous links would not work. A Usenet friend of mine was able to verify the signature under Linux with openssl and a Hex Editor, for example... Here again the link to my document: https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf and here the link for people who don't use Adobe DC Reader: https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas pgpLQoRucpgCM.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On Thu, 1 Nov 2018 17:42:41 +0100, Stefan Claas wrote: > > > Here is a little example, of a .pdf i have signed with my > > > qualified signature: > > > > > > https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf > > > > > Linux users can verify my qualified signature here: > > > > > https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo > > > > > macOS oder Windows users can use the free Adobe Reader DC > > > to do he same. > > > > Libreoffice can verify the signature also and some other tools. > > I am not able to verify a qualified eIDAS conform X.509 sig, which > i can create now, with LibreOffice, nor with other tools, except Adobe > Reader DC or with the mentioned web site link. Have you or someone > else actually tried to verify my greetings.pdf on my keybase page? > > If so i am really interested in the results from various tools! I am also *very much* interested what infos users in the U.S., Canada, U.K. and Ireland, for example, see (is the certificate Info displayed in English?) when verifying my document with Adobe Reader DC! An image link from a screenshot would be very much appreciated! Regards Stefan -- https://www.behance.net/futagoza https://keybase.io/stefan_claas pgp8XSbL_sXjI.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
On Thu, 01 Nov 2018 16:09:56 +0100, Dirk Gottschalk wrote: Hi Dirk, > Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 11:19 +0100 schrieb > stefan.cl...@posteo.de: > > Hi Dirk, > > I personally like that we have such EU regulation. And i understand > > that it costs money to build and maintain such infrastructure. > > The Problem is the implication of trust in governmental organizations > per se in this case. But, far from this, there are other signature > providers who are trusted per default. AFAIK, Governikus is not listed > in the standard CA packs, yet. How could Governikus be listed, they are a PGP CA and not X.509, run on behalf by Germany's BSI ? > > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > > those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. > > Okay, that's yout thing. BUT, you may habe verified some of the > signers keys at your own, this would be the same as checking against > Governikus ,for example. No, i don't think it is the same, or do you personally verify a X.509 Root CA? I can only trust macOS or Windows with it's build in key store and the fingerprints on web sites from the CA's. Regarding Governikus in can check for the PGP fingerprint on one of their pages and must rely on proper operation of my BSI certified card reader, AusweisApp2 and of course of my nPA. > > Here is a little example, of a .pdf i have signed with my qualified > > signature: > > > > https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf > > > Linux users can verify my qualified signature here: > > > https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo > > > macOS oder Windows users can use the free Adobe Reader DC > > to do he same. > > Libreoffice can verify the signature also and some other tools. I am not able to verify a qualified eIDAS conform X.509 sig, which i can create now, with LibreOffice, nor with other tools, except Adobe Reader DC or with the mentioned web site link. Have you or someone else actually tried to verify my greetings.pdf on my keybase page? If so i am really interested in the results from various tools! > > At list of TSP's (Trust Service Provider) can be seen here: > > https://helpx.adobe.com/document-cloud/kb/european-union-trust-lists.html > > > > This is the real problem I have with the EU regulations. There are > regulations out there which are much better and have not such > expensive certification costs to become "qualified". The sign-me service is currently free of charge and i expect once commercially available the costs for signing (frequently) a document there would be much lower than obtaining a qualified eIDAS conform certificate on a signature card, plus software and card reader costs. > [...] > > > Thanks, much appreciated! I really like to see some more examples > > from native English speakers living in the U.S. > > Godd idea. I found some Policies regarding PGP, but nothing like you > want to do. But I only did a quick search. Same for me... and that is the reason why i started the discussion, to let people think about it. > > I would like to omit the creation procedure or how the signing > > procedure works, because imho people from the PGP ecosystem > > should accept in the future qualified X.509 signatures. > > Not the whole procedure. But you should explain that this ist a > trustworthy signature provider sind Governikus is not yet listed as a > standard root CA. That is the reason why i like to sign the .pdf, containing my key data, with a qualified eIDAS conform signature. The detached GnuPG sig should be an additional info, that matches the key data in the document. > To state it clear. x.509 is a good standard and a good procedure. I > only think the "qualified" overrated in some situations. The > "qualified" is only really relevant in juristic context in Germany or > in EU. And even then there are some exclamations where other rules > override this. I had a lawsuit one year ago that showed this clearly. I only came up with this, hopefully good, idea because a qualified and eIDAS conform signature will be, i strongly assume, the highest level in trustworthy signatures available, in the future. At least in Europe. Regards Stefan pgpj2IV3hspkI.pgp Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
hi Stefan. Am Donnerstag, den 01.11.2018, 11:19 +0100 schrieb stefan.cl...@posteo.de: > Hi Dirk, > > To answer your question, even if the answer is not what you > > expected: > I expected something like this... ;-) > > > I don't think this would change anything on the reputation on your > > key. > > I even don't think there is any good reason for the EU-Regulation > > at > > all. There is much taste of "get the citizens money for everything" > > in > > it. ^^ > I personally like that we have such EU regulation. And i understand > that it costs money to build and maintain such infrastructure. The Problem is the implication of trust in governmental organizations per se in this case. But, far from this, there are other signature providers who are trusted per default. AFAIK, Governikus is not listed in the standard CA packs, yet. > > The trust level for a key depends on the trust to the signature > > which > > are made for your key. There is no valid reason to trust > > "Governikus" > > or "D-Trust (Bundesdruckerei)" by default at all, especially for > > people > > in foreign countries. Even I don't do this. > And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures > made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except > those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. Okay, that's yout thing. BUT, you may habe verified some of the signers keys at your own, this would be the same as checking against Governikus ,for example. > Why? Can i, for example, trust fan signatures made by users on > someones key which bears several hundred sigs and the key holder > does not sign the signers keys? No, of course not. Call me stupid > but even if Governikus would be run by the BND or NSA etc. i would > trust the validity of such signed keys more than a signed key from > "somebody" signed by other people i do not know. Due to the procedure > Governikus uses i can be personally rest assured that the key belongs > to the person which the key data states. The only thing GnuPG offers > me with signatures, not made with Governikus signed keys, is that if > someone has tampered with a document the "signature" would be then no > longer valid. This is also the case with the PGP standard. > Here is a little example, of a .pdf i have signed with my qualified > signature: > > https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf > Linux users can verify my qualified signature here: > https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo > macOS oder Windows users can use the free Adobe Reader DC > to do he same. Libreoffice can verify the signature also and some other tools. > At list of TSP's (Trust Service Provider) can be seen here: > https://helpx.adobe.com/document-cloud/kb/european-union-trust-lists.html This is the real problem I have with the EU regulations. There are regulations out there which are much better and have not such expensive certification costs to become "qualified". I would consider a x.509 cert as valid and trustworthy which is signed by one of the well known CAs whith "extended verification". But that's another discussion. > I think PGP users should be more open to current available and > accepted standards when it comes to digital signatures. This isn't the Problem at alöl. X.509 is a really good standard. I use it mysqld really often for signing PDFs or some other things. > > Best thing is to verify a key personally. > Yes, in case of PGP / GnuPG when using the classical WoT procedure. That's what i meant. [...] > Thanks, much appreciated! I really like to see some more examples > from native English speakers living in the U.S. Godd idea. I found some Policies regarding PGP, but nothing like you want to do. But I only did a quick search. > I would like to omit the creation procedure or how the signing > procedure works, because imho people from the PGP ecosystem > should accept in the future qualified X.509 signatures. Not the whole procedure. But you should explain that this ist a trustworthy signature provider sind Governikus is not yet listed as a standard root CA. To state it clear. x.509 is a good standard and a good procedure. I only think the "qualified" overrated in some situations. The "qualified" is only really relevant in juristic context in Germany or in EU. And even then there are some exclamations where other rules override this. I had a lawsuit one year ago that showed this clearly. The combination of OpenPGP-Card and x.509 is, that should be said, really a goof thing. I'm running my a CA for my customers and me, for internal purposes, which means for data exchange between different software and so on, and the keys are derived from PGP keys on Card. GPGSM is a really nice solutions for such CSRs.I t only lacks the ability of creating CRLs, otherwise it could be used as a CA too. Okay, now I drifted completely off of your topic. I'm Sorry. Regards, Dirk -- Dirk Gottschalk Paulusstrasse 6-8 52064 Aachen, Germany GPG:
Re: Slightly OT - i need the proper wording for a signed document
Hi Dirk, To answer your question, even if the answer is not what you expected: I expected something like this... ;-) I don't think this would change anything on the reputation on your key. I even don't think there is any good reason for the EU-Regulation at all. There is much taste of "get the citizens money for everything" in it. ^^ I personally like that we have such EU regulation. And i understand that it costs money to build and maintain such infrastructure. The trust level for a key depends on the trust to the signature which are made for your key. There is no valid reason to trust "Governikus" or "D-Trust (Bundesdruckerei)" by default at all, especially for people in foreign countries. Even I don't do this. And this is the problem i have since 1994/95... For me signatures made with PGP / GnuPG have no weight, for several reasons, except those made from Governikus and maybe CT Magazine signed keys. Why? Can i, for example, trust fan signatures made by users on someones key which bears several hundred sigs and the key holder does not sign the signers keys? No, of course not. Call me stupid but even if Governikus would be run by the BND or NSA etc. i would trust the validity of such signed keys more than a signed key from "somebody" signed by other people i do not know. Due to the procedure Governikus uses i can be personally rest assured that the key belongs to the person which the key data states. The only thing GnuPG offers me with signatures, not made with Governikus signed keys, is that if someone has tampered with a document the "signature" would be then no longer valid. Here is a little example, of a .pdf i have signed with my qualified signature: https://keybase.pub/stefan_claas/docs/greetings.pdf Linux users can verify my qualified signature here: https://ec.europa.eu/cefdigital/DSS/webapp-demo macOS oder Windows users can use the free Adobe Reader DC to do he same. At list of TSP's (Trust Service Provider) can be seen here: https://helpx.adobe.com/document-cloud/kb/european-union-trust-lists.html I think PGP users should be more open to current available and accepted standards when it comes to digital signatures. Best thing is to verify a key personally. Yes, in case of PGP / GnuPG when using the classical WoT procedure. I would create a file which describes how your key was verified before signing and the data FPR and UID of your gnupg key, sign this with your x.509 and create a detached signature with gnupg. Needles to say that you should use the key mentioned in the PDF. The wording should not be difficult itself. Something like: The OpenPGP key key data is signed by Governikus. ... signed by ... Thanks, much appreciated! I really like to see some more examples from native English speakers living in the U.S. I would like to omit the creation procedure or how the signing procedure works, because imho people from the PGP ecosystem should accept in the future qualified X.509 signatures. Regards Stefan ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
