> Von: Peter Lebbing [mailto:pe...@digitalbrains.com] > > On 04/09/18 15:22, Peter Lebbing wrote: > > I don't understand, could you give commands, expected behaviour and > > actual output? > > To clarify, I thought you were giving an example of "starting gpgv > without any keyring at all", because you gave it a non-existing homedir. > Only on re-reading your other mail did I understand this was an example > of how you were actually trying to do it.
Sorry about being inprecise in my reply. Yes, you are completely right: no matter which command line used, the "[GNUPG:] UNEXPECTED 0 gpgv: verify signatures failed: Unexpected error" error from gpgv or plain gpg does not vanish, only additional error messages can be added depending on the keyrings used. Using the /proc/self/fd/nonexistent as home directory should only serve the purpose, that it is much harder for an attacker to create that path than one where the parent directory is a writable file system. I just removed the executable bit from "gpg2" binary and are now isolating all gpg calls in a clean wrapper library to invoke "gpg1". When all use-cases work with gpg1 and there is still some time, I will try to implement also a gpg2 wrapper to start another gpg1->gpg2 migration attempt. But that will be end of September earliest. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users