Re: Clearsign
On 8/3/24 01:24, mr_shortchange wrote: It's very kind of you. I try to answer your questions down below. Please help me. Thank you. To: Stuart Longland From: mr_shortchange You forgot to include the list. To or CC should include: gnupg-users@gnupg.org Using "Reply All" should fix that. I'm no expert, so cannot assist you personally. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clearsign
On 7/3/24 03:31, mr_shortchange via Gnupg-users wrote: Dear Fellows! Importing my private key is flawless but signing is faulty. May I ask for your help? Okay, a big tip… don't ask to ask, just ask. All we know is you have a problem with generating signatures, and apparently your key is "flawless" (whatever that means). We don't know what version of GnuPG you're running (or even if you are using GnuPG at all). We don't know what OS you're running it with. We don't know what type of private key you're using (e.g. RSA, ED25519, etc). We don't know where the private key resides. (is it in your home directory key chain, is it on a security token?) We don't know if other operations such as encryption or authentication work. We don't know whether you're generating signatures on the command line, or through some front-end application. I might wear a pointy hat, but I'm no wizard, and I lost my crystal ball in the 2011 Brisbane floods. (It was defective anyway, otherwise I'd have known the floods were coming.) If you don't want to tell us these things, then that's fine, but you're on your own to troubleshoot the issue as we have nothing to go on, because clear-signing is working fine here. -- Stuart Longland (aka Redhatter, VK4MSL) I haven't lost my mind... ...it's backed up on a tape somewhere. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Clearsign
Dear Fellows! Importing my private key is flawless but signing is faulty. May I ask for your help? Sent with [Proton Mail](https://proton.me/) secure email.___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org https://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
Patrick Schleizer: > Werner Koch: >> On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:52, patrick-mailingli...@whonix.org said: >> >>> However, what works for me is this: >>> >>> gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc >> >> We are both wrong. --verify does only a verify and nothing else. >> Running without --verify writes the actual signed data to the file. > > Indeed. > > What I wanted to write in my previous mail... > > However, what works for me is this: > > gpg --output ./out --decrypt ./sha512sums.asc > > Adding --decrypt or not has the same result? Can answer my own question: Using --decrypt for verification only is a really bad idea in scripts - gpg would still exit 0 if file is encrypted, but unsigned. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
Werner Koch: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:52, patrick-mailingli...@whonix.org said: > >> However, what works for me is this: >> >> gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc > > We are both wrong. --verify does only a verify and nothing else. > Running without --verify writes the actual signed data to the file. Indeed. What I wanted to write in my previous mail... However, what works for me is this: gpg --output ./out --decrypt ./sha512sums.asc Adding --decrypt or not has the same result? ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 19:52, patrick-mailingli...@whonix.org said: > However, what works for me is this: > > gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc We are both wrong. --verify does only a verify and nothing else. Running without --verify writes the actual signed data to the file. > When it exits 0, then this approach is sound, sane and fine? You better check the status lines; in particular watch out for [GNUPG:] VALIDSIG E4B868C8F90C. or use gpgv. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
On 1/12/2015 at 1:50 PM, "Patrick Schleizer" wrote: >> gpg --verify --output OUT SIGNEDDATA - >gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc > >When it exits 0, then this approach is sound, sane and fine? - There is a way of addition to clearsigned messages that is not detectable: Adding 'spaces' at the end of the line of visible characters. Here is a clearsigned message without any spaces added: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 This Is Just a Test -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Comment: Fingerprint: C982 4216 3053 B6F3 62F2 7DC0 506F 4FA1 D35F B186 Comment: Key ID: 0xD35FB186 Comment: nothing added to cleartext iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJUtCfmAAoJEFBvT6HTX7GGJlUP+QGHkTWBRvXUsfsVi5QyqJji WKt5KkJIu+cv5dKVwJuWHVnhlCrdpqvVToofgk+oVJQp2KrnkesxkdwbPi87oJO9 nSc/4BCQedvYqa9nZ54YPGdRse9yttfzpwLtlbCWPqaMHN5trOwmBervAEW7GhCR kmUeM7ZlPAj9QUVS8TKzWXlMu63YpYwrRGt1EXevbTaMcUWOOG9+azQy5nYw04oq yuDDhdzV6MqL6bgxcnH4Psw5ykB59nlAEHjAeTVAObR6SzkSrOUhAL6velZcIJXq kVLvKustBhTQ12JVL52S7Y+CMKQPE8SA2apvbhALV9RjnQK6jG99oradSFpQtlfh PnM2ENRWZXi1D1BO5PJft4JzsMh2v6WqaiYJy5rmrJbbZyoo0vBqfizon1Mx2rtc YmIOw7bvClV4oG/zOlC0aeI0QNKPGcESWWV5THEPVBGOx9edVcuzADJMJGbbIC/0 Ufs4lngy4zrKlLSWqwKM6MoYyXiRHsHaUCcGbXVGnbSspnUbEybDAPskBcqVp+DC VH5NxDmQQEWUdTQEyiSmygXpa9GojX3KCFkF85Ohh3SUZ3O88ila+zpbDpfrXkJL D2w6dyIqKghQuM9hivMYUNdLTYmWHNgDSbFyCcZuhzAbPCRx3tjle+BRSMKT3V6X y0ofhIQ+3QeZzkHWkL+R =M/in -END PGP SIGNATURE- It is possible to add blank spaces to the end of the visible characters on each line, as long as it doesn't result in a new line wrap, and the signature will still verify. Don't know of any practical exploits of this property, other than possibly intentionally padding the files to use up someone's storage, (not likely in today's large storage capacity ;-) ) It could be useful if a sender and receiver would agree on a special code as to the padding, i.e. if someone is being forced to sign something, the sender and receiver could agree that adding the following spaces to each line for 4 lines: 7 7 2 4 would signify the hidden message: signing against my will (but this could also easily be forged by anyone who knew the system ...) Anyway, just a curiosity of which users should be aware. Absolutely *no* suggestions/requests to change GnuPG in any way (which wouldn't be backward compatible anyway) Armored signing, or a detached signature of a text file, *will* detect any spaces added on to a line. vedaal ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
Werner Koch: > On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:19, patrick-mailingli...@whonix.org said: > >> Suppose a file has been `--clearsign`ed. Then an adversary pretended or >> appended extraneous content. > > That is what the signature is all about ;-). Use > > gpg --verify --output OUT SIGNEDDATA > > to write the _verified_ content of the file SIGNEDDATA to the file OUT. > You also need to check the verification status of course. Tried your syntax. And also tried this one: gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc Never created an "out" file for me. However, what works for me is this: gpg --output ./out --verify ./sha512sums.asc When it exits 0, then this approach is sound, sane and fine? - Is there a way to detect, that a file looks like this: ## b4e5ac6ceb9812dacf1f5db26c65b3329da031b0ef5a6107e38e2d92b91ae5f6daff6e6774fbb0ab5bb4148ae4f71b4511595149876f181c40fba5ec0e20a399 test ## vs a file looking like this: ## prepended content -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 b4e5ac6ceb9812dacf1f5db26c65b3329da031b0ef5a6107e38e2d92b91ae5f6daff6e6774fbb0ab5bb4148ae4f71b4511595149876f181c40fba5ec0e20a399 test -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- ... -END PGP SIGNATURE- appended content ## Any way to distinguish both states? Cheers, Patrick ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
On Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:19, patrick-mailingli...@whonix.org said: > Suppose a file has been `--clearsign`ed. Then an adversary pretended or > appended extraneous content. That is what the signature is all about ;-). Use gpg --verify --output OUT SIGNEDDATA to write the _verified_ content of the file SIGNEDDATA to the file OUT. You also need to check the verification status of course. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
How to detect extraneous content in clearsigned (--clearsign) files?
Hi! Suppose a file has been `--clearsign`ed. Then an adversary pretended or appended extraneous content. How can such a situation be detected? Any gpg built in way or would one have to use a third party solution or invent one? Perhaps code talks more: https://gist.github.com/adrelanos/defdf9d693c2726514fd Cheers, Patrick ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:03, gn...@iam.tj said: > to see how to do is set the keyring file to use. There doesn't appear to be > any function that provides for setting an existing key ring; the best I could > find is gpgme_op_import_keys() which talks about: The keyring is an internal propery of GnuPG and thus we can't provide an API in GPGME. What we do instead is to allow swicthing GnuPG's home directory via gpgme_set_engine_info. > In my scenario I simply need to tell the crypto engine to use the > "/etc/apt/trusted.gpg" Do you want to use gpgme as a API for gpgv ? It might be useful to consider a new gpgme_protocol for verifying keys using a redefined set of keys. Salam-Shalom, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On 31/08/14 01:47, Ingo Klöcker wrote: On Saturday 30 August 2014 23:11:17 TJ wrote: On 30/08/14 22:20, Ingo Klöcker wrote:> I strongly suggest that you have a look at using some Python binding for gpgme instead of messing around with gpg. gpgme is _the_ library for using GnuPG in other programs. Thanks - somehow I'd missed gpgme and the python-gpgme package which is available for Debian/Ubuntu. pygpgme looks to be a very basic wrapper around gpgme but has no documentation about how it deals with type differences. Looking at the API documentation for gpgme the one thing I've not been able to see how to do is set the keyring file to use. There doesn't appear to be any function that provides for setting an existing key ring; the best I could find is gpgme_op_import_keys() which talks about: "the general interface to move a key from one crypto engine to another as long as they are compatible. In particular it is used to actually import and make keys permanent which have been retrieved from an external source" In my scenario I simply need to tell the crypto engine to use the "/etc/apt/trusted.gpg" keyring which is what I'm doing with the python-gnupg library currently. I had expected gpgme_set_engine_info() would be the most likely function for setting the key ring. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On Saturday 30 August 2014 23:11:17 TJ wrote: > On 30/08/14 22:20, Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > BTW, which language do you want to write the code in? > > Well, I'm working in C to add another option to gpg, but the code that > needs this is a Python library (that imports python-gnupg) that > enables the regular verification of the GPG signatures of APT archive > 'Release' files in all Debian/Ubuntu/related-distro mirrors > world-wide. I strongly suggest that you have a look at using some Python binding for gpgme instead of messing around with gpg. gpgme is _the_ library for using GnuPG in other programs. The following message from last year lists two Python bindings: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2013-April/046477.html Regards, Ingo 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: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On 30/08/14 22:20, Ingo Klöcker wrote: On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote: The aim/hope was to combine the plaintext and detached signature into the armored clearsign format and thus avoid needing to write one of them to the file-system (the other can be supplied via stdin). You can probably use another approach than trying to create a clearsigned text from a signed text and its detached signature. On the command line one can provide both, the detached signature and the signed text, one after the other via stdin by running gpg --verify - - You need to separate the detached signature and the signed stuff with an EOT, e.g. on the console first you enter the armored detached signature and terminate it with Ctrl+D, then you enter the signed text and terminate it with Ctrl+D. This would solve the issue I'm dealing with, but I can't get it to work here: gpg --verify - - < <(echo -ne "$(cat Release.gpg)\004$(cat Release)\004") gpg: Signature made Sat 30 Aug 2014 22:58:07 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 gpg: BAD signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " cat -e < <(echo -ne "$(cat Release.gpg)\004$(cat Release)\004") | grep END # -END PGP SIGNATURE-^DOrigin: Ubuntu$ With "--debug-all" I noticed that "dgbmd-1.verify" is empty, which indicates no plaintext was received. BTW, which language do you want to write the code in? Well, I'm working in C to add another option to gpg, but the code that needs this is a Python library (that imports python-gnupg) that enables the regular verification of the GPG signatures of APT archive 'Release' files in all Debian/Ubuntu/related-distro mirrors world-wide. If I can find a way to pass both plaintext and detached signature via stdin that would solve the issue - I'm trying to avoid any need to create temporary files on the file-system. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote: > I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to > understand what the differences are between --clearsign and > --detach-sign signatures. > > This came about whilst writing code that calls on "gpg --verify" on > detached signatures; specifically Debian APT archives that contain > "Release" (plaintext) and "Release.gpg" (detached signature). > > The aim/hope was to combine the plaintext and detached signature into > the armored clearsign format and thus avoid needing to write one of > them to the file-system (the other can be supplied via stdin). You can probably use another approach than trying to create a clearsigned text from a signed text and its detached signature. On the command line one can provide both, the detached signature and the signed text, one after the other via stdin by running gpg --verify - - You need to separate the detached signature and the signed stuff with an EOT, e.g. on the console first you enter the armored detached signature and terminate it with Ctrl+D, then you enter the signed text and terminate it with Ctrl+D. BTW, which language do you want to write the code in? Regards, Ingo 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: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
I've finally pinned down the issue. The manipulation of the plaintext by clearsign results in the message digest being calculated on different plaintext, as per RFC4880 7.1 Dash-Escaped Text: "As with binary signatures on text documents, a cleartext signature is calculated on the text using canonical line endings. The line ending (i.e., the ) before the '-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-' line that terminates the signed text is not considered part of the signed text." The issue stems from the different ways that DOS/Windows and *nix handle line-endings. In DOS/Windows is the line separator whereas in *nix it is the line terminator. DOS/Windows doesn't require a line-separator at the end of the last line of a text file, whereas *nix requires a line terimantor. I used 3 plaintext test-cases to isolate the issue: Release: A Debian APT archive Release file (all lines end with LF including the last line) Release.CRLF : 'Release' with all line endings converted to CRLF Release.CRLF.2 : 'Release.CRLF' with the final CRLF removed "gpg --debug-all --detach-sign --armor ..." does not modify the plaintext before generated the message digest (see "dbgmd-1.sign"). "gpg --debug-all --clearsign ... Release.CRLF.2" does *not* modify the plaintext (see "dbgmd-1-clearsign"). "gpg --debug-all --clearsign ... Release.CRLF" modifies the plaintext by removing the final CRLF pair (see "dbgmd-1-clearsign"). "gpg --debug-all --clearsign ... Release" modifies the plaintext, replacing all LF with CRLF and removing the last lines terminator (see "dbgmd-1-clearsign"). So to use a detached signature to verify using clearsign format the plaintext must be pre-formatted to be identical to the clearsign generated plaintext form: gpg --debug-all --digest-algo SHA512 --detach-sign --armor --local-user 3591FB89 --output Release.gpg <(sed 's/$/\r/' Release | head -c -2) gpg --verify <(echo -e "-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-\nHash: SHA512\n\n$(sed 's/$/\r/' Release | head -c -2)\n$(cat Release.gpg)") # gpg: Signature made Sat 30 Aug 2014 18:41:52 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " gpg --verify <(echo -e "-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-\nHash: SHA512\n\n$(cat Release)\n$(cat Release.gpg)") # gpg: Signature made Sat 30 Aug 2014 18:41:52 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " Unfortunately, for plaintext that hasn't been pre-formatted, it means gpg needs modifying in order for it to correctly verify clearsign input that embeds a detached signature rather than a clearsign signature. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On 29/08/14 19:03, Ingo Klöcker wrote: On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote: I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to understand what the differences are between --clearsign and --detach-sign signatures. The RFC is probably much easier to read than the source code: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880 The RFC was fine but, for me, the code is authoritative especially when I suspect implementation differences. I had thought that the message digest hash (in this case SHA512) should be the same since the input data is the same which-ever signing method is used. This didn't work as I had expected so I have been digging into the source-code to figure out what is different between the two signing methods. In general the message digest hashes will differ. The reason for this is a different canonicalization of the signed text (provided the detached signature is a text document signature; if it's a binary document signature no canonicalization is applied). A main difference is the stripping of trailing whitespace in the text (which is done for cleartext signatures but not for text document signature). Yes, I worked on that one too, checking that there was no white-space at end of lines: egrep '[\t ]$' Release | wc -l 0 I also tried replacing with as per 5.2.1. and "Signature of a canonical text document". gpg --verify <(echo -e "-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-\nHash: SHA512\n\n$(sed ':a;N;$!ba;s/\n/\r\n/g' Release)\n$(cat Release.asc.gpg)") # gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 18:32:06 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " gpg --verify <(echo -e "-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-\nHash: SHA512\n\n$(sed ':a;N;$!ba;s/\n/\r\n/g' Release)\n$(cat Release.Test.detached.gpg)") # gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 19:29:37 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: BAD signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " Looking at the code the signing path is either of: g10/sign.c::sign_file() g10/clearsign_file() For sign_file() text_filter() and md_filter() are added to the input iobuf filter list. For clearsign_file() copy_clearsig_text() is called, which in turn uses len_without_trailing_chars() to copy the line excluding trailing whitespace from plaintext input to clearsign output. For verify_signatures() and verify_files() (via verify_one_file()), armor_filter() is pushed onto the iobuf filter list then proc_signature_packets() is called, which calls do_proc_packets() which, during IOBUFCTRL_UNDERFLOW calls radix64_read() which skips whitespace characters. This being the case I cannot see any opportunity for the plaintext that is the subject of the message digest hashing to be different, which suggests that something else is added to the hashed value when generating a detached signature. gpg --verify Release.asc # gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 18:32:06 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " gpg --verify Release.Test.detached.gpg Release # gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 19:29:37 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " gpg --verify Release.asc.gpg Release # gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 18:32:06 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89 # gpg: BAD signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64) " ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
On Thursday 28 August 2014 22:53:52 TJ wrote: > I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to > understand what the differences are between --clearsign and > --detach-sign signatures. The RFC is probably much easier to read than the source code: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880 > This came about whilst writing code that calls on "gpg --verify" on > detached signatures; specifically Debian APT archives that contain > "Release" (plaintext) and "Release.gpg" (detached signature). > > The aim/hope was to combine the plaintext and detached signature into > the armored clearsign format and thus avoid needing to write one of > them to the file-system (the other can be supplied via stdin). > > I had thought that the message digest hash (in this case SHA512) > should be the same since the input data is the same which-ever > signing method is used. This didn't work as I had expected so I have > been digging into the source-code to figure out what is different > between the two signing methods. In general the message digest hashes will differ. The reason for this is a different canonicalization of the signed text (provided the detached signature is a text document signature; if it's a binary document signature no canonicalization is applied). A main difference is the stripping of trailing whitespace in the text (which is done for cleartext signatures but not for text document signature). For details see http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-5.2.4 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4880#section-7 Regards, Ingo 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
Difference between clearsign and detached signatures?
I've recently been digging deep into the source-code trying to understand what
the differences are between
--clearsign and --detach-sign signatures.
This came about whilst writing code that calls on "gpg --verify" on detached
signatures; specifically Debian APT
archives that contain "Release" (plaintext) and "Release.gpg" (detached
signature).
The aim/hope was to combine the plaintext and detached signature into the
armored clearsign format and thus avoid
needing to write one of them to the file-system (the other can be supplied via
stdin).
I had thought that the message digest hash (in this case SHA512) should be the
same since the input data is the same
which-ever signing method is used. This didn't work as I had expected so I have
been digging into the source-code
to figure out what is different between the two signing methods.
This led to a series of tests trying to figure it out but after several hours
I'm no clearer so I thought I'd ask.
Here is the shell script that captures the tests I've been doing:
#!/usr/bin/env /bin/bash
set -x
gpg --version
# gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.16
# Copyright (C) 2013 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
# License GPLv3+: GNU GPL version 3 or later <http://gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
# This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
# There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
#
# Home: ~/.gnupg
# Supported algorithms:
# Pubkey: RSA, RSA-E, RSA-S, ELG-E, DSA
# Cypher: IDEA, 3DES, CAST5, BLOWFISH, AES, AES192, AES256, TWOFISH,
# CAMELLIA128, CAMELLIA192, CAMELLIA256
# Hash: MD5, SHA1, RIPEMD160, SHA256, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224
# Compression: Uncompressed, ZIP, ZLIB, BZIP2
wget http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/Release 2>/dev/null
wget http://archive.ubuntu.com/ubuntu/dists/trusty/Release.gpg 2>/dev/null
echo "Verify the detached signature"
gpg --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg --verify Release.gpg Release
# gpg: Signature made Thu 08 May 2014 15:20:33 BST using DSA key ID 437D05B5
# gpg: Good signature from "Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key
"
# gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
# gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
# Primary key fingerprint: 6302 39CC 130E 1A7F D81A 27B1 4097 6EAF 437D 05B5
# gpg: Signature made Thu 08 May 2014 15:20:33 BST using RSA key ID C0B21F32
# gpg: Good signature from "Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key (2012)
"
# gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
# gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
# Primary key fingerprint: 790B C727 7767 219C 42C8 6F93 3B4F E6AC C0B2 1F32
echo "Try to stitch together the plaintext and detached signature into cleartext
format for verification"
gpg --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg --verify <(set +x && echo -e "-BEGIN PGP
SIGNED MESSAGE-\nHash: SHA512\n\n$(cat Release Release.gpg)")
# gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Apr 2014 21:05:34 BST using DSA key ID 437D05B5
# gpg: BAD signature from "Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key
"
# gpg: Signature made Wed 23 Apr 2014 21:05:34 BST using RSA key ID C0B21F32
# gpg: BAD signature from "Ubuntu Archive Automatic Signing Key (2012)
"
echo "Now try using a local test key, creating both clearsign and detached
signatures"
gpg --list-key 3591FB89
# pub 2048R/3591FB89 2014-08-28
# uid Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64)
# sub 2048R/4AD9A3DF 2014-08-28
gpg --clearsign --digest-algo SHA512 --local-user 3591FB89 Release
echo "Verify the clearsign document"
gpg --verify Release.asc
# gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 17:21:44 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89
# gpg: Good signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64)
"
echo "Split the clearsign document into plaintext and detached signature files"
sed -n '/^Origin:/,/-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE/ {/^-/d; p}' Release.asc
>Release.asc.plaintext
sed -n '/-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE/,/-END PGP SIGNATURE/p' Release.asc
>Release.asc.gpg
echo "Prove the split plaintext MD5 is identical to the original plaintext"
md5sum Release Release.asc.plaintext
# abb06855aee7fa5b964800511a515183 Release
# abb06855aee7fa5b964800511a515183 Release.asc.plaintext
echo "Attempt to verify using the split detached signature and split plaintext"
gpg --verify Release.asc.gpg Release.asc.plaintext
# gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 17:21:44 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB89
# gpg: BAD signature from "Test Key (gnupg 1.4.16 Ubuntu 14.04 amd64)
"
echo "Attempt to verify using the split detached signature and the original
plaintext"
gpg --verify Release.asc.gpg Release
# gpg: Signature made Thu 28 Aug 2014 18:32:06 BST using RSA key ID 3591FB
Re: understanding GnuPG "--clearsign" option
On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:40 AM, Martin T wrote: > Hi, > > one can sign the message with "--clearsign" option which adds ASCII > armored(Radix-64 encoding) "PGP signature" at the end of the text. > This "PGP signature" contains the UID of the signer, timestamp and key > ID. However, two questions: > > 1) Where is the UID of the signer, timestamp of the signature and > signer key-ID stored? If I execute "gpg2 --verify file.asc", then I'm > able to see the UID of the signer, timestamp and signer key-ID, but if > I decode the Radix-64/base64 data back to binary(base64 -d) and use > "hexdump -C" to analyze this data, I do not see the UID, timestamp or > signer key-ID. The timestamp and the signer's key ID are both present in the binary blob. The signer's user ID is not, as GPG is using the signer's key ID to look up the signer's key and shows the user ID from there. > 2) What exactly is this "PGP signature"? Is it a SHA1 hash of the > message which is encrypted with my private key and then ASCII armored? It's not always SHA-1, and there are other things included in the hash, but at a very high level, this is basically accurate. The exact construction of a signature and how the input is calculated is given in RFC-4880, the OpenPGP specification. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: understanding GnuPG "--clearsign" option
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:40:35AM +0300, Martin T wrote: > Hi, > > one can sign the message with "--clearsign" option which adds ASCII > armored(Radix-64 encoding) "PGP signature" at the end of the text. > This "PGP signature" contains the UID of the signer, timestamp and key > ID. However, two questions: > > 1) Where is the UID of the signer, timestamp of the signature and > signer key-ID stored? If I execute "gpg2 --verify file.asc", then I'm > able to see the UID of the signer, timestamp and signer key-ID, but if > I decode the Radix-64/base64 data back to binary(base64 -d) and use > "hexdump -C" to analyze this data, I do not see the UID, timestamp or > signer key-ID. To add to the other good advice you've gotten, you might want to experiment with the --list-packets option to gpg to get a peak at the inner structure of that blob at the end. -- @maximus_freeman 0x7D964D3361142ACF pgpMkpwmvefDh.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: understanding GnuPG "--clearsign" option
On 08/12/2013 08:40 AM, Martin T wrote: > Hi, > > one can sign the message with "--clearsign" option which adds ASCII > armored(Radix-64 encoding) "PGP signature" at the end of the text. > This "PGP signature" contains the UID of the signer, timestamp and key > ID. However, two questions: GnuPG does much more than just the Radix-64 encoding with the --clearsign: $ gpg --default-key MINE --output list.asc \ --clearsign list.txt By that I mean gpg/gpg2 doesn't just do a base64 conversion but also does other magic stuff. You can stop reading now. > 1) Where is the UID of the signer, timestamp of the signature and > signer key-ID stored? If I execute "gpg2 --verify file.asc", then I'm > able to see the UID of the signer, timestamp and signer key-ID, but if > I decode the Radix-64/base64 data back to binary(base64 -d) and use > "hexdump -C" to analyze this data, I do not see the UID, timestamp or > signer key-ID. The UID and other things are stored in the string which is usually more than one line long between the BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE and END PGP SIGNATURE. But I am puzzled how you did this part. If I copy the now clear signed list.txt to a justsig.txt file and edit out all but the hash I get a warning. Actually I get a warning no matter what content is in the justsig.txt file from the base file: $ base64 -d < justsig.asc > list.bin base64: invalid input The list.bin file has zero length unless you use nothing but the hash which is the normal way base64 works for email attachments. In any event, list.bin created with just the hash has no known file type that magic understands. e.g.: $ file list.bin list.bin: data $ ls -l list.bin 287 list.bin Like I said, if you use anything BUT just the hash, list.bin will contain nothing (zero bytes). But I will ALWAYS get the "invalid input" meaning it is something base64 does NOT understand. Is this what you did to get a non-zero length file via base64 -d from a --clearsign file? > 2) What exactly is this "PGP signature"? Is it a SHA1 hash of the > message which is encrypted with my private key and then ASCII armored? It uses the hash in the preferred order of what is associated with the key used and what the the version of OpenPGP you are using is capable of handling. That for me is SHA-256 since that is my first choice and my version of gpg can handle it. SHA1 is usually the default unless you set your preferences to something else since it is still difficult to do a brute attack on SHA1 (but it can be done): http://securemecca.com/public/GnuPG/GnuPG_Prefs.txt The hash is created based on the text as input using the private side of the key and then ASCII armored in such a way that when you verify it finds the appropriate public key based on the hash and does the other hash calculation of the text and see if it matches. In any event, the markers of --clearsign make it clear that only an OpenPGP compliant program can handle it. The MIME markines are used by email to determine what handles it since a --clearsign is what you need to make the signature something you can send in email but it can be used for other purposes. It is just that you can NOT send a non-ASCII signature directly in email without it being converted to ASCII first. There are other uses of -clearsign like when you what the signature and the file contents together. base64, the older uuencode and uudecode and similar programs do nothing more than convert a binary file like a zip file into ASCII text so the zip file can be sent as an email attachment. Send a message to yourself in email with a test.zip attachment. Save the entire message to a file (for Thunderbird you will have an *.eml file). Assuming the file was named test.eml and the attachment was test.zip: $ cp test.eml test.base64 Edit the test.base64 file so it has only the hashed material and note the zip name (assuming test.zip was what you attached and sent). Also note that it uses base64 as the type in the "Content-Transfer-Encoding:" if that is what your email used (it usually is). $ base64 -i -d < test.base64 > test,zip $ file test.zip test.zip: Zip archive data, at least v1.0 to extract $ unzip test.zip $ cat test.txt Hello World GnuPG does much more than just the Radix-64 binary to ASCII conversion and only gpg or gpg2 can handle it. Use base64 only if it is specified in the MIME markings (the latest malware from PeskySpammer here): Content-Type: application/zip; name="Tax Notices Report.zip" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; name="Tax Notices Report.zip" Usually you won't need to use base64 and Thunderbird Evolution, or other mail programs will allow the saving of the file unless Microsoft Exchange munges it in a bounce to you. In that case, i
Re: understanding GnuPG "--clearsign" option
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:40:35AM +0300, Martin T wrote: > Hi, > > one can sign the message with "--clearsign" option which adds ASCII > armored(Radix-64 encoding) "PGP signature" at the end of the text. > This "PGP signature" contains the UID of the signer, timestamp and key > ID. However, two questions: > > 1) Where is the UID of the signer, timestamp of the signature and > signer key-ID stored? If I execute "gpg2 --verify file.asc", then I'm > able to see the UID of the signer, timestamp and signer key-ID, but if > I decode the Radix-64/base64 data back to binary(base64 -d) and use > "hexdump -C" to analyze this data, I do not see the UID, timestamp or > signer key-ID. > > 2) What exactly is this "PGP signature"? Is it a SHA1 hash of the > message which is encrypted with my private key and then ASCII armored? According to http://openpgp.org/technical/ the OpenPGP standard is RFC 4880. So, as your question is quite technical, you should be able to find your answer here : http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4880.txt Sorry for not being able to help you more! Leo ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
understanding GnuPG "--clearsign" option
Hi, one can sign the message with "--clearsign" option which adds ASCII armored(Radix-64 encoding) "PGP signature" at the end of the text. This "PGP signature" contains the UID of the signer, timestamp and key ID. However, two questions: 1) Where is the UID of the signer, timestamp of the signature and signer key-ID stored? If I execute "gpg2 --verify file.asc", then I'm able to see the UID of the signer, timestamp and signer key-ID, but if I decode the Radix-64/base64 data back to binary(base64 -d) and use "hexdump -C" to analyze this data, I do not see the UID, timestamp or signer key-ID. 2) What exactly is this "PGP signature"? Is it a SHA1 hash of the message which is encrypted with my private key and then ASCII armored? regards, Martin ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Clearsign text document with multiple keys?
On Fri, 26 Jul 2013 02:42, adrela...@riseup.net said: > can a plain text document be clear signed by multiple keys at the same > time? (Hold by different people.) Yes. > One can create a plain text file a, clear sign it and get a.asc. Another > one can clear sign a.asc and get a.asc.asc. I think a more useful way is to have independent signatures: gpg --clearsign -u key1 -u key2 -u key3 file.txt The problem is how to do this given that the 3 keys are hold by different users. The OpenPGP protocol allows for this but GPG has no provisions to create such a signature. > Is it possible to verify the document in one run and get a list of signers? gpg --verify fule.txt.asc will show you the status of all 3 signatures. Here is an example using 2 keys: $ fortune | gpg2 --clearsign -u alpha -u w...@gnupg.org >x $ cat x -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.1.0-beta212 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHyHVkACgkQLXJ8x2hpdzT28gCgnG+PEF/8fxZIPwFz7kPgD3gw St8An1z98Wy8MKVce4SfId4gdeqxtak5iEYEARECAAYFAlHyHVoACgkQTwVA1Xf5 X5WyjQCfQ3ShNQjt2bFgsjAOcy/LpvJRZXMAn3PnUZwj3NnnxIhyWYx1lNju3C/R =xQfe -END PGP SIGNATURE- $ gpg2 --verify x gpg: Good signature from "Alfa Test (demo key) " gpg: aka "Alpha Test (demo key) " gpg: aka "Alice (demo key)" gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner. Primary key fingerprint: A0FF 4590 BB61 22ED EF6E 3C54 2D72 7CC7 6869 7734 gpg: Signature made Fri Jul 26 08:55:22 2013 CEST using DSA key ID 77F95F95 gpg: Good signature from "Werner Koch " gpg: aka "Werner Koch " [I removed some diagnostics from gpg's output] If you look with "gpg --list-packets" at the signature block you will see this: :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 2D727CC768697734 version 4, created 1374821721, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest f6 f2 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2013-07-26) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID 2D727CC768697734) data: [160 bits] data: [159 bits] :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 4F0540D577F95F95 version 4, created 1374821722, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest b2 8d hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2013-07-26) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID 4F0540D577F95F95) data: [159 bits] data: [159 bits] Two standard OpenPGP signature packets. Let's see whether we can create such a signature in a different way: $ echo 'You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled.' \ | gpg2 --clearsign -u alpha >x1 $ echo 'You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled.' \ | gpg2 --clearsign -u w...@gnupg.org >x2 $ cat x1 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.1.0-beta212 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHyH2QACgkQLXJ8x2hpdzQW2QCfVPNjc1j9N0XksVLBPVS78TjD t0UAn24dvQE4Nl+CsLzaQfbdOIaG5LWU =2tcx -END PGP SIGNATURE- $ cat x2 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 You look like a million dollars. All green and wrinkled. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.1.0-beta212 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlHyH20ACgkQTwVA1Xf5X5XkoACeN0g+3NGXj6TPRSzGIlTkMehD b2wAn0tpT67h+//gOBm+5+t3bjXIGDrT =+yf4 -END PGP SIGNATURE- gpg --list-packets of x1 yields: :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 2D727CC768697734 version 4, created 1374822244, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest 16 d9 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2013-07-26) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID 2D727CC768697734) data: [159 bits] data: [159 bits] and of x2: :signature packet: algo 17, keyid 4F0540D577F95F95 version 4, created 1374822253, md5len 0, sigclass 0x01 digest algo 2, begin of digest e4 a0 hashed subpkt 2 len 4 (sig created 2013-07-26) subpkt 16 len 8 (issuer key ID 4F0540D577F95F95) data: [158 bits] data: [159 bits] That is pretty similar to the first output. However the files x1 and x2 could have been created on two different boxes. Let's see how we can combine them into one signature block: $ sed -n '/SIGNATURE/,$ p' x1 | gpg2 --dearmor | gpgsplit --no-split >y1 $ sed -n '/SIGNATURE/,$ p' x2 | gpg2 --dearmor | gpgsplit --no-split >y2 $ cat y1 y2 | gpg --enarmor | sed -n '5,$ p' | grep -v -- - >y $ (sed -n '1,/SIGNATURE/ p' x1
Clearsign text document with multiple keys?
Hi, can a plain text document be clear signed by multiple keys at the same time? (Hold by different people.) One can create a plain text file a, clear sign it and get a.asc. Another one can clear sign a.asc and get a.asc.asc. One who wants to verify it, can first verify the signature of the second one, then the signature of the first one. Its a bit cumbersome. Is it possible to verify the document in one run and get a list of signers? Cheers, adrelanos ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
clearsign in GPA
Is it true to say, as it appears to me, that I cannot select a file in GPA's File Manager and then use a tool or menu option in order to clearsign the file? Rather, I have to have opened the file first and copied its contents to the Clipboard first, and only then can I clearsign it in GPA after opening the Clipboard? In other words, File Manager lets me sign but not clearsign. Thanks. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Problems with clearsign option
Hi Folks, I'm new to this site and I have a prob with the gpg --clearsign option. My mails to RIPE NCC are signed with my PGP-Key. This worked well for the last 6 years. Now I have the prob, that the signature is called bad from the RIPE mailer I' using: gpg (GnuPG) 1.4.11 on ubuuntu the email client is Lotus Notes 8.5 when I'm signing mails and veryfing them on the cmd: ~/.gnupg$ gpg --verify test.asc gpg: Signature made Wed 19 Oct 2011 08:50:20 AM CEST using DSA key ID 696F76DD gpg: Good signature from "AS Maintainer " everything works fine. The same Mail sent over my Notesclient: ***Error: The following PGP credentials were not correct: 696F76DD ***Error: PGP signature validation failed: gpg: Signature made Tue 18 Oct 2011 12:55:32 PM CEST using DSA key ID 696F76DD gpg: BAD signature from "AS Maintainer " The interessting thing is, that it sometimes works! Nothin done in another way all things are done the same way and it's ok. I tried it on several systems with gpg 1.4.6 up to 1.4.11. When I'm using the new environment the first mail is accepted the next mails are rejected - is there a caching mechanism enabled? I can't find a solution or a way for a solution for this prob. Any help would be appreciated Thanks Cord ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 16:58, o...@enigmail.net said: > since I'm not the only one that cannot use SHA256/SHA512 with the v2 > card, may I ask you to test signing with an OpenPGP card v2 using hash I just checked the sources: It seems you are using 2.0.16 from gpg4win. This version does not support other hash algorithms due to a bug in gpg2. I fixed the bug in 2.0.x on 2010-09-28 but this is after the 2.0.16 release and we also don't have have patch in for gpg4win. The proper solution will be a 2.0.17 release. I'll check tomorrow whether this can be done timely - if not I'll post a patch and add that one to gpg4win. Shalom-Salam, Werner -- Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hi David, [2010-12-11 o...@mozilla-enigmail.org] > OpenPGP SmartCard v2 key 0x6AE1EF56 (RSA 3072) Card 0005 0222 > Why can't I use SHA256/SHA512 with this card? > | enable-dsa2 > is set and showpref lists [2010-12-20 ds...@jabberwocky.com] > The v2 card works just fine with other algorithms. If it isn't > working for you, then there may be an issue, but it is not related > to the fact that you are using a v2 card. since I'm not the only one that cannot use SHA256/SHA512 with the v2 card, may I ask you to test signing with an OpenPGP card v2 using hash algos other than SHA-1/RIPEMD-160? I have no idea how to narrow the problem further. Olav P.S.: new email address, I just updated my key accordingly - -- The Enigmail Project - OpenPGP Email Security For Mozilla Applications -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQGcBAEBAwAGBQJNKdsdAAoJEKGX32tq4e9WP60L/0vCY3CNBhiYjghEKln9AWsE p9dxR7ZjcE+LkrEA+VNoYIYrH9m2RV/wsgoHj3fh78xa9P9aPwsaY7hsxCMUkcvY V6eRq9cDgAPsa0ZBgw+wsnPvRTwT4UxOD6zg+FNWlRFO4K5UnSQB+kkhl/dlxNzR etQJ90Vw9BAGiFTg3A5rRk68b6Bu/ibjC9F0Fn3Ern9vvL/qHuBu3NHFvOpX08wD owqPQ/ZVulxtLqrtbSxEry5kAX6J4gUaZV8DnoElr+HdQk8VvWl2ZtWvOhAkC/DR dug5U8G9sCo13hXsZnx/6f444ZI9dkmir+werQCyUE7fkCDdJifLuY45Yu65wkW3 Py7JVTuETJ8/gvbV/VsaOb/gSs3ACWKHiV9opEcloFejI2D/1XcysYITF7jLm/fC qydQpIe/cCZFlblI5sKrzNTEYyz1VRvXfFqr8a15rSKGivFvoZjqGkskjAMuhv+j EsJBF/kebrIptkWbIkq+DxIbCDEL20WpjbNcf1GdtA== =OITF -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
On Dec 19, 2010, at 6:16 PM, David Shaw wrote: On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Chris Ruff wrote: On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 14:57 +0100, Olav Seyfarth wrote: My key: OpenPGP SmartCard v2 key 0x6AE1EF56 (3072 Bit RSA) Card 0005 0222 Why can't I use SHA256/SHA512 with this card? | enable-dsa2 is set and showpref lists The documentation for OpenPGP v2 smartcard states that only RIPEMD-160 & SHA-1 are supported as a digest algorithm at this point in time. You'll have to change your digest prefs accordingly to use the card. excert from doc: "Cards with Version < 2.0 sup port RIPEMD-160 and SHA-1 only and may check it, so other hash algorithms cannot be used." Although I assume it should say =<2.0. Feedback from others if this was a typo in teh doc and should be =<2.0? That is not a typo. The v2 card works just fine with other algorithms. If it isn't working for you, then there may be an issue, but it is not related to the fact that you are using a v2 card. David Interesting, but yes, when I attempt to sign with SHA256 I receive 'gpg: signing failed: Bad signature'. I seem to recall a discussion around this and it wasn't the signing that was failing but rather the post validation check of the newly made signature. I could be wrong. ___ Chris Ruff jcr...@gmail.com GPG Key: 0x307A351B4EC4B6A1 FGPR: BF2F 2497 22E7 FEB5 C805 075C 307A 351B 4EC4 B6A1 "No one can see past a choice they don't understand." --The Oracle PGP.sig 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: clearsign failed: Bad signature
Am Dienstag 21 Dezember 2010 13:59:16 schrieb John Ruff: > >> "Cards with Version < 2.0 sup port RIPEMD-160 and SHA-1 only and may > >> check it, so other hash algorithms cannot be > >> used." > around this and it wasn't the signing that was failing but rather the > post validation check of the newly made signature. I could be wrong. It seems that I have not understood the process of signing correctly. Does the smardcard create the hash value? Does not make sense IMHO. Or is this about the length of the value to be signed? And I have no idea how tha smartcard could be involved in checking a signature as you don't need the secret key for that. Hauke -- PGP: D44C 6A5B 71B0 427C CED3 025C BD7D 6D27 ECCB 5814 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: clearsign failed: Bad signature
On Dec 17, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Chris Ruff wrote: > On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 14:57 +0100, Olav Seyfarth wrote: > >> My key: OpenPGP SmartCard v2 key 0x6AE1EF56 (3072 Bit RSA) Card 0005 0222 >> >> Why can't I use SHA256/SHA512 with this card? >> | enable-dsa2 >> is set and showpref lists > > The documentation for OpenPGP v2 smartcard states that only RIPEMD-160 & > SHA-1 are supported as a digest algorithm at this point in time. You'll > have to change your digest prefs accordingly to use the card. > > excert from doc: > > "Cards with Version < 2.0 sup port RIPEMD-160 and SHA-1 only and may > check it, so other hash algorithms cannot be > used." > > Although I assume it should say =<2.0. Feedback from others if this was > a typo in teh doc and should be =<2.0? That is not a typo. The v2 card works just fine with other algorithms. If it isn't working for you, then there may be an issue, but it is not related to the fact that you are using a v2 card. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Thanks Chris, > The documentation for OpenPGP v2 smartcard states that only RIPEMD-160 > & SHA-1 are supported as a digest algorithm at this point in time. I overlooked that part. Olav - -- The Enigmail Project - OpenPGP Email Security For Mozilla Applications -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQGcBAEBAwAGBQJNC9BIAAoJEKGX32tq4e9WtMEL/1sJqnybJxTsUKV6/o5vGK9k KmAjcCsQXnLHUnm4M7ky5uF6NZ3a0wNnpr2N6PatgYMqcCUqPw+ASpVCB3kQcDNZ ybdUu/yHt3OMHq2td2qLhXJoogzOXqVK7iN3Jeb6KP+K3KyFX4gmCckoRE6eKsFT uqB1RsD0V9uv2C4al3IQHCNx2Mdh5VwHm03oUzbte6b/vuhOZZ6CAVmY60eQ03RI faKUi+DSM0icOJqRqxQeBWtJyqvPoWXV4XN9wlaW8WN7RbWOA9o1y7xP+Fgi0j5C c1/8TVi7UuKQsD2q/VL9YyIymsoMhTvPvN3q0i63RuY2AvndAqst4ZoqWelfJw2d uYP4nxICLztnToi+01izGw9hrLZW6fKVpqkmAuqXjPZt6HSisHylWWNG0DzjRSlU TbIwQa6PNLFr5GMT6Ycdvj2Jum2sdRqNkhHjusjD9ZNrpssvVEoqSjndxMjrYkWE MsA9QnUDnyIcW2XkPshKHjWqb4tpps7lvoUNC3mR5w== =CzC9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 14:57 +0100, Olav Seyfarth wrote: > My key: OpenPGP SmartCard v2 key 0x6AE1EF56 (3072 Bit RSA) Card 0005 0222 > > Why can't I use SHA256/SHA512 with this card? > | enable-dsa2 > is set and showpref lists The documentation for OpenPGP v2 smartcard states that only RIPEMD-160 & SHA-1 are supported as a digest algorithm at this point in time. You'll have to change your digest prefs accordingly to use the card. excert from doc: "Cards with Version < 2.0 support RIPEMD-160 and SHA-1 only and may check it, so other hash algorithms cannot be used." Although I assume it should say =<2.0. Feedback from others if this was a typo in teh doc and should be =<2.0? -- __ Chris Ruff email: jcr...@gmail.com gpg key: 0xDD55B6FC gpg fgpr: 1BA1 71D7 ADA7 1E8B 1623 A43D 283B 2F81 BDD5 B810 ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign failed: Bad signature
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Hi list, > Hash: SHA256 > gpg: checking created signature failed: Bad signature I found the cause (in gpg.conf): | personal-digest-preferences SHA256 doesn't work | personal-digest-preferences SHA512 doesn't work either | personal-digest-preferences RIPEMD160 does work. My key: OpenPGP SmartCard v2 key 0x6AE1EF56 (3072 Bit RSA) Card 0005 0222 Why can't I use SHA256/SHA512 with this card? | enable-dsa2 is set and showpref lists | [ultimate] (1). Olav Seyfarth (Card 011D) | Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES | Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 | Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed | Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify | [ultimate] (3) Olav Seyfarth (Card 011D) | Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES | Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 | Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed | Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify | [ultimate] (4) Olav Seyfarth (Card 011D) | Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES | Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 | Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed | Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify | [ultimate] (5) [jpeg image of size 1540] | Cipher: AES256, AES192, AES, CAST5, 3DES | Digest: SHA256, SHA1, SHA384, SHA512, SHA224 | Compression: ZLIB, BZIP2, ZIP, Uncompressed | Features: MDC, Keyserver no-modify Olav - -- The Enigmail Project - OpenPGP Email Security For Mozilla Applications -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.16 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQGcBAEBAwAGBQJNA4NFAAoJEKGX32tq4e9W08wL/R9hEDl5ZMqeYXY262T1jARr 237XCqZ9kbAAaB/LWrhyqgb7wmRpDBDf4mKP1EAOkPr/uuPt4AHHr6r9lWqT9sfu qLR3/6zSz4n29/DYKu077KsmKh26Cmzaa0KrOlDjgu9zO6E84X/fEWKxHJtQezpM MXgXu+7YXkl9413WMntiBdFH8r0XBHQqrLSEtVkWTr6xzYNbqDHKfdWR7eWn2SJY 1yLOtVzWWfhzrVUNKyp3aLTpjz0mfCP4s6FQSrBIStMZKoQNYDde8qHHkfVsYCFm ZVclvA0m9NoROdVBpdo9GbiZsx1jnQXhjd6TpqrcKK+Lbnz0CugdqdpWwYGpVkSR IyWCVjbJtCYwLobio0OrO5+3L19in89ylzWeSlHTzoRFsd2XamKpQxl/Tl/hJH4n +bREhgSy2egt7cl5vQMIvWr6OuRLWoPmWHyND/YbBDFXkfvzpEfxClic+1S/ic2R SyhtVhnsB78tm+aAo2XXqTjvX2hEKYDkaxJ0tS5bQw== =blaG -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
clearsign failed: Bad signature
Hi list, since a couple of days I encounter gpg errors that I do not know how to solve. echo "test" > _ gpg --clearsign < _ -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 "test" gpg: checking created signature failed: Bad signature gpg: signing failed: Bad signature gpg: [stdin]: clearsign failed: Bad signature System: Windows 7 64bit, gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.16 (Gpg4win 2.1.0-beta1) Any hint appreciated, Olav -- The Enigmail Project - OpenPGP Email Security For Mozilla Applications ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
Bob Henson wrote: > Add just "digest-algo SHA256" (without the parentheses) to your gpg.conf > file. Please don't. This is usually the wrong solution. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
On Sunday 10 May 2009 14:52:21 Tyler Spivey wrote: > Hello. I'm trying to make any message I clearsign > have a hash of SHA256. > Here is what I've done so far: > I've added "personal-digest-preferences SHA256" to the end of my gpg.conf > file. According to the manpage, this should be enough; since the manpage > states: > The most highly ranked digest algorithm in > this list is algo used when signing without encryption (e.g. > --clearsign or --sign). > > but if I gpg --clearsign a test file, the hash at the top says SHA1. I've > verified that My gpg 1.4.9 has sha256, > and I can force it with --digest-algo sha256. > What do I need to do to make it default to that on signs/clearsigns? You might find this thread interisting: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2009-May/036338.html especially David's reply http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2009-May/036344.html Raimar 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: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
On May 10, 2009, at 10:58 AM, Bob Henson wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Tyler Spivey wrote: and I can force it with --digest-algo sha256. Add just "digest-algo SHA256" (without the parentheses) to your gpg.conf file. Please do not do this. There is an entire section entitled INTEROPERABILITY in the manual giving reasons why this will almost certainly break things for you. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
On May 10, 2009, at 8:52 AM, Tyler Spivey wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello. I'm trying to make any message I clearsign have a hash of SHA256. If the key you are trying to make a SHA256 signature with is the same one that you signed this message with, then you can't. It's a 1024- bit DSA key, and that key can only use a 160 bit hash. (You can force it to use SHA256, but you'll still end up using only 160 bits of the 256 bit hash). David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Tyler Spivey wrote: > and I can force it with --digest-algo sha256. Add just "digest-algo SHA256" (without the parentheses) to your gpg.conf file. Regards, Bob ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJKBuuHAAoJEJ3GodtqGtFCgzwH+QF3fnU9tk1EpcEufwfzdZeW X2sZm6AzRSdd1m+WB3mUQfl7sq1nACEgY/hTG7lQxYZ+P+YAgrKKpNEkKHweXR++ Ka7YmXX7oZOK5RIzwJAwxtDqCKQEM/VqXqybuTs8psGr9H+tobzqtBwx79bU1/u+ 0mfouKz9NknqXWN/b2Ek1SWke2jTyHaQqxZ+6WJDgb1iy7c35pIb43SauwKGTMUc JLIYR/q5aV1X1O614juiZYSIlrBpVySA2Kq6/eAHYKfRsTxaAK5/o7umASYBdSEf 3JvGLjGtN8D6tuReeOR0mKzF74J4QvHyHIdZSid8/BobhPpAIo/aJqnviMMPeSY= =bYAM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Tyler Spivey wrote: > Hello. I'm trying to make any message I clearsign > have a hash of SHA256. > Here is what I've done so far: > I've added "personal-digest-preferences SHA256" to the end of my gpg.conf > file. According > to the manpage, this should be enough; since the manpage states: > The most highly ranked digest algorithm in > this list is algo used when signing without encryption (e.g. > --clearsign or > --sign). > What do I need to do to make it default to that on signs/clearsigns? "Ranked" = the 1st digest algo listed in the preferences string. ;) JOHN 8-) Timestamp: Sunday 10 May 2009, 11:52 --400 (Eastern Daylight Time) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10-svn4995: (MingW32) Comment: Public Key at: http://tinyurl.com/8cpho Comment: Gossamer Spider Web of Trust: https://www.gswot.org Comment: Homepage: http://tinyurl.com/yzhbhx iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJKBvhvAAoJEBCGy9eAtCsPZYwH/AiRUr6KRxbviBsiazyttNM/ ouOeMjIpkFSccLWsnDBE6vIOU+JUDXbS9cl/DjO4W+FbNWlnlUz4yjwbzygMao3o 2eeUMNUJNRqidB5NXzX7+z+IZxho3x6MJh+017bhlAwdFCcYjedPR7CJsKzSPDK3 UOcnLNZ0DngontojFyT/SoeZKO7WF/xu/6uZW/24Q9HmqNbelVOOfEjaFWtd6J1+ NNvQyal1QK2yqMcVIRdoz6weBpEsSAtx3+pZGm8/MDwhXhgiYnCRFGW/L+KYOaoS F8/xfbPzzXr+5b95CQBbaxA4zu2U3LXHLQ4xFhX/0t/giM4hlwzcJxUEs+TmHos= =SyjZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Problems changing hash algo for clearsign
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hello. I'm trying to make any message I clearsign have a hash of SHA256. Here is what I've done so far: I've added "personal-digest-preferences SHA256" to the end of my gpg.conf file. According to the manpage, this should be enough; since the manpage states: The most highly ranked digest algorithm in this list is algo used when signing without encryption (e.g. --clearsign or - --sign). but if I gpg --clearsign a test file, the hash at the top says SHA1. I've verified that My gpg 1.4.9 has sha256, and I can force it with --digest-algo sha256. What do I need to do to make it default to that on signs/clearsigns? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkoGzfEACgkQTsjaYASMWKTWuQCfTKhFgEIolXpp3/E37XWzDtmZ UUQAn2hDssNi9d1dGwMvlJ0ROkFcyci9 =WRan -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign a variable?
"Gordon McNevin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > $cmd = "echo $passphrase | $gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --no-tty -u $cmd = "(echo "$passphrase"; echo "$variable") \ | $gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --clearsign - The trick here is that the passphrase is only read up to and including the first linefeed. Then the rest is fed into gpg as regular input. BTW, it is easier and equal save to remove the passphrase from the key so that you don't need the --passphrase-fd at all. Shalom-Salam, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
clearsign a variable?
Hi, Just wondering how do you clear sign a variable please on the command line? I'm running this in a php script... $emailbody = "reg-city:Ely\n"; $emailbody .= "reg-postcode:CB6 1RA\n"; $emailbody .= "reg-country:GB\n"; $cmd = "echo $passphrase | $gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --no-tty -u $key --force-v3-sigs --no-secmem-warning --clearsign $emailbody" . "" . " &> /tmp/error "; $encrypted_message = shell_exec($cmd); But it's simply not working. Does anyone know how I can clearsign a variable without all this file interaction please? Many thanks, Gordon ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
clearsign a variable?
Hi, Just wondering how do you clear sign a variable please on the command line? I'm running this in a php script... $emailbody = "reg-city:Ely\n"; $emailbody .= "reg-postcode:CB6 1RA\n"; $emailbody .= "reg-country:GB\n"; $cmd = "echo $passphrase | $gpg --passphrase-fd 0 --no-tty -u $key --force-v3-sigs --no-secmem-warning --clearsign $emailbody" . "" . " &> /tmp/error "; $encrypted_message = shell_exec($cmd); But it's simply not working. Does anyone know how I can clearsign a variable without all this file interaction please? Many thanks, Gordon ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign destroys files
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 > gpg --clearsign -o signed.pdf original.pdf > gpg --decrypt -o destroyed.pdf signed.pdf You can't clearsign a binary directly, but you can clearsign a list of binary checksums, if you don't want to create a whole bunch of external files. I typically use both md5 and sha1. For example, here's how I signed the 8.0.3 PostgreSQL distribution: http://www.gtsm.com/postgresql-8.0.3.gpg.txt - -- Greg Sabino Mullane [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200507141255 https://www.biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- iEYEARECAAYFAkLWmVwACgkQvJuQZxSWSsgsNwCg32vjlIs52Oe0s19k3aGTkMXp DDkAn0jv3tqwYFGqriWLB7xvTJB+z5wm =BGRm -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: clearsign destroys files
On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:48:58 +0200, Tobias Roth said: > gpg --clearsign -o signed.pdf original.pdf You can't clearsign binary data. Shalom-Salam, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
clearsign destroys files
Hi The following command sequence seems to destroy the pdf file: gpg --clearsign -o signed.pdf original.pdf gpg --decrypt -o destroyed.pdf signed.pdf The new file is slightly smaller than the original one, the difference seems to be some differences in linefeed/newline characters. Adding --no-textmode does not make a difference. With --sign instead of clearsign, the original file and the signed/decrypted file match, no breakage occurs. My GnuPG version is 1.4.1, tried on FreeBSD and GNU/Linux. thanks, t. ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 17:42:13 -0400, Dan Mundy said: > this plugin sounds like a neat idea. will it be featured on the > gnupg.org site? Sure. Salam-Shalom, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Werner Koch wrote: > On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:36:32 +0200, Martin Geisler said: > > >>I don't know how Outlook (not Express) handles things. > > > It won't be possible to verify a signature with Outlook due to the > fact that it is not possible to get to the raw MIME headers. It might > be possible to write a plugin which uses heuristics to verify > signatures in most cases. We, g10 Code, are considering to implement > this in the new plugin we are working on. > > > Salam-Shalom, > >Werner this plugin sounds like a neat idea. will it be featured on the gnupg.org site? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Mon, 06 Jun 2005 16:16:54 +0200, Sascha Kiefer said: > The PGP/MIME RFC states that you can first sign and then encrypt the mail. Doing this on the MIME level allows you to easily strip the encryption layer while leaving the signature intact. > In S/MIME it is allowed to first encrypt and then sign the message. > Do you think it's feasible to do the same in PGP/MIME? I think it is Yes it is possible but you should not do it. When signing an encrypted document you don't know what you are actually signing and it won't be possible to keep the signature intact (e.g. archival purposes) without compromising the encryption key. Salam-Shalom, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Werner Koch schrieb: The first of course. Shalom-Salam, Werner Okay, perfekt. The PGP/MIME RFC states that you can first sign and then encrypt the mail. In S/MIME it is allowed to first encrypt and then sign the message. Do you think it's feasible to do the same in PGP/MIME? I think it is because the it's still MIME. Regards, Sascha ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Sun, 5 Jun 2005 13:45:30 +0200, Kiefer, Sascha said: > Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of > rfc2015 and rfc3156. Correct, 3156 has only minor clarifications. > So, what is right? > RFC like: > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5 > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=bar Correct. > Or (enigmail like) > Content-Type: multipart/mixed; > boundary="foo" Wrong. IIRC this is a workaround due to problems with the Mozilla code. Enigmail users should nag the Mozilla hackers to provide a working and useful interface to MIME and don't hardcode S/MIME. > But what should i generate? The first of course. Shalom-Salam, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 11:36:32 +0200, Martin Geisler said: > I don't know how Outlook (not Express) handles things. It won't be possible to verify a signature with Outlook due to the fact that it is not possible to get to the raw MIME headers. It might be possible to write a plugin which uses heuristics to verify signatures in most cases. We, g10 Code, are considering to implement this in the new plugin we are working on. Salam-Shalom, Werner ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Kiefer, Sascha wrote: >>Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by >>RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way. >> >>David > > > Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of > rfc2015 and rfc3156. > > So, what is right? > > RFC like: > > Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5 > protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=bar > > --bar > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Test Message. > > --bar > Content-Type: application/pgp-signature > > -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- > Version: PGP 8.1 > > iQA/AwUBQqI6/QInDejiptdCEQL7OwCgwhnncXMuL2gh4yzj8ZJryhGY0wsAoIof > z6j0B4UwYiLW0zLeAbEUZiTf > =F5ME > -END PGP MESSAGE- > > --bar-- > > > Or (enigmail like) What you showed was not Enigmail like. Rather it looks like you're missing the (embedded) pgp mime part created from mailman. Enigmail creates correct RFC 3156 messages. Look e.g. at Dan's last message: Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="foo" --foo Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bar" --bar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Test Message. --bar Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- WHATEVER -END PGP MESSAGE- --bar-- --foo Some text from mailman --foo-- signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
> Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by > RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way. > > David Well, as far as i see there is no difference between the MIME format of rfc2015 and rfc3156. So, what is right? RFC like: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5 protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary=bar --bar Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Test Message. --bar Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQqI6/QInDejiptdCEQL7OwCgwhnncXMuL2gh4yzj8ZJryhGY0wsAoIof z6j0B4UwYiLW0zLeAbEUZiTf =F5ME -END PGP MESSAGE- --bar-- Or (enigmail like) Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="foo" --foo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Test Message. --foo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -BEGIN PGP MESSAGE- Version: PGP 8.1 iQA/AwUBQqI6/QInDejiptdCEQL7OwCgwhnncXMuL2gh4yzj8ZJryhGY0wsAoIof z6j0B4UwYiLW0zLeAbEUZiTf =F5ME -END PGP MESSAGE- --foo-- Of cource, the best idea is to accept both. But what should i generate? Regards, Sascha <>___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Dan Mundy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Shaw wrote: >> [... all nice features of PGP/MIME...] Plus, plus, plus. > > No minuses, though, i hope? The only thing I've come across is people using Outlook Express: they will see an empty mail with two attachments: your message as one attachment and the signature as another. I don't know how Outlook (not Express) handles things. -- Martin Geisler GnuPG Key: 0x7E45DD38 PHP EXIF Library | PHP Weather | PHP Shell http://pel.sf.net/| http://phpweather.net/ | http://mgeisler.net/ Read/write EXIF data | Show current weather| A shell in a browser pgpFdxdmTjdF8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 07:12:51PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote: > David Shaw wrote: > > Plus, plus, plus. > > No minuses, though, i hope? One or two, yes. Mainly that there are programs out there that - even this many years later - don't understand it. Outlook is the chief culprit here. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
David Shaw wrote: > Plus, plus, plus. No minuses, though, i hope? Dan p.s. i have started using pgp/mime as a default. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:30:53PM -0400, Dan Mundy wrote: > hey all, > > i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg > clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what? > which should i use more often? please help me! When at all possible, use PGP/MIME. It's automatically handles all of the little fussy things that cause signatures to become invalid after being mailed. Plus, it handles attachments. Plus, it handles character sets that aren't US-ASCII. Plus, plus, plus. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:42:51AM +0200, Kiefer, Sascha wrote: > Hmm. > I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago. > The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format > you are using. > Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare > The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true. > Maybe I'm missing something, or your messages not pgp/smime encoded? > I attached your mails (one signed, one encrypted) to this mail, > so you can check to see what i mean. Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way. David ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Okay; That's this missing part. Thanks! Regards, Sascha > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Shaw > Sent: Sonntag, 5. Juni 2005 01:01 > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing > > > On Sat, Jun 04, 2005 at 10:42:51AM +0200, Kiefer, Sascha wrote: > > Hmm. > > I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago. > > The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the > > format you are using. Your mails start with a Content-Type of > > multipart/mixed and you declare The pgp data as > attachments. But this > > is not true. Maybe I'm missing something, or your messages not > > pgp/smime encoded? I attached your mails (one signed, one > encrypted) > > to this mail, so you can check to see what i mean. > > Possibly the confusion is that RFC-2015 was updated by > RFC-3156. You should do things the 3156 way. > > David > > ___ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Hmmm... No, i think sean is also false. The last mail form ivan boldyrev is encoded right! > -Original Message- > From: Dan Mundy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 14:21 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing > > > Kiefer, Sascha wrote: > > >Hmm. > >I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago. > >The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the > >format you are using. Your mails start with a Content-Type of > >multipart/mixed and you declare The pgp data as attachments. > But this > >is not true. Maybe I'm missing something, or your messages not > >pgp/smime encoded? I attached your mails (one signed, one > encrypted) to > >this mail, so you can check to see what i mean. > > > >Regards, > >Sascha > > > > > yeah, i noticed that sean didn't have any attachments, even > though enigmail recognized his signature alright. that's > kind of strange. > ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Kiefer, Sascha wrote: >Hmm. >I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago. >The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format >you are using. >Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare >The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true. >Maybe I'm missing something, or your messages not pgp/smime encoded? >I attached your mails (one signed, one encrypted) to this mail, >so you can check to see what i mean. > >Regards, >Sascha > > yeah, i noticed that sean didn't have any attachments, even though enigmail recognized his signature alright. that's kind of strange. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
On 9130 day of my life Dan Mundy wrote: > hey all, > > i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg > clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what? > which should i use more often? please help me! Clearsigning can be processed by recipient even if his mail client dosn't know anything about GPG/PGP. PGP/MIME needs mail client support. However, clearsigning has problem with attachments and charsets. You can't reconstruct charset of original message -- was it UTF-8, KOI8-R or windows-1251. PGP/MIME handles it gracefully. Clearsinged messages can be corrupted by transitional mail servers; PGP/MIME cannot. I prefer PGP/MIME. -- Ivan Boldyrev Tragedy of programmers is that computer is wonderful toy and programmers have to use it in their work. pgpSGMLzXq5Ke.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
RE: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Hmm. I just implemented RFC2015 3 days ago. The format of PGP/MIME described in that paper does not match the format you are using. Your mails start with a Content-Type of multipart/mixed and you declare The pgp data as attachments. But this is not true. Maybe I'm missing something, or your messages not pgp/smime encoded? I attached your mails (one signed, one encrypted) to this mail, so you can check to see what i mean. Regards, Sascha > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sean C. C. > Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 08:26 > To: Dan Mundy; gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing > > > Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the > signature no matter what their system. Some people like to > use the current window function of PGP and front-ends for GPG > such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is good for sending mail to many > people some of whom have no idea of what PGP/GPG is. Using > PGP/MIME the signature appears as an attachment as > 'signature.asc'. For people who aren't interested in PGP they > will probably never see the attachment. The down sides to > PGP/MIME are that people who use Outlook and OE will not be > able to see them correctly. They will see a blank email with > two attachments: 1) the signature and > 2) the actual message. > > DISCLAIMER: I'm still learning myself about PGP/GPG, so this > may not be exactly how it really is. > > Dan Mundy said the following on 6/3/2005 8:30 PM: > > hey all, > > > > i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg > > clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better > for what? > > which should i use more often? please help me! > > > > thanks all, > > > > Dan > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > > > ___ > > Gnupg-users mailing list > > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users > test.b64 Description: Binary data ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
Clearsigning is good because it allows anyone to verify the signature no matter what their system. Some people like to use the current window function of PGP and front-ends for GPG such as GPGshell. PGP/Mime is good for sending mail to many people some of whom have no idea of what PGP/GPG is. Using PGP/MIME the signature appears as an attachment as 'signature.asc'. For people who aren't interested in PGP they will probably never see the attachment. The down sides to PGP/MIME are that people who use Outlook and OE will not be able to see them correctly. They will see a blank email with two attachments: 1) the signature and 2) the actual message. DISCLAIMER: I'm still learning myself about PGP/GPG, so this may not be exactly how it really is. Dan Mundy said the following on 6/3/2005 8:30 PM: > hey all, > > i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg > clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what? > which should i use more often? please help me! > > thanks all, > > Dan > > > > > > ___ > Gnupg-users mailing list > Gnupg-users@gnupg.org > http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
[Fwd: Re: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing]
--- Begin Message --- I'm wondering which kind of signing you did on this mail? > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dan Mundy > Sent: Samstag, 4. Juni 2005 02:31 > To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org > Subject: GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing > > > hey all, > > i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg > clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better > for what? which should i use more often? please help me! > > thanks all, > > Dan > > --- End Message --- ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
GnuPG Clearsign vs. PGP/MIME Signing
hey all, i was wondering what the differences between conventional gpg clearsigning and pgp/mime signing are. which one's better for what? which should i use more often? please help me! thanks all, Dan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
