After looking at the content of subpacket 33, it appears to be the
signing-key's fingerprint prepended by '0x04'.
So I'm guessing subpacket 33 is to be a more robust version of subpacket 16
(Issuer)?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Hello, I am working to better understand the OpenPGP standard and how it is
handled by the current implementation of GnuPG.
To this end I have created a Python program that reads ASCII-Armor and returns
details about the encoded data within. This is purely for my own edification
and
> please don't script based on the output of gpg without using
> --with-colons.
Correction noted, thank you. Have one in return. :)
> for fpr in $(gpg --with-colons --list-keys | \
>awk -F: '/^fpr:/{ print $10 }'); do \
> gpg --edit-key "fpr" clean save; done
"fpr"
On Tue 2018-01-23 16:55:20 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
>> From the man page:
>
> Note that this can be done in a bash one-liner:
>
> $ for x in `gpg --list-keys|grep "[A-F0-9]\{40\}"|sed 's/ //g'` ; do gpg
> --edit-key $x clean save ; done
please don't script based on the output of gpg without
On Mon 2018-01-22 15:37:37 -0500, Phil Pennock wrote:
> So at this point, it looks to me like it really is an incorrect
> checksum, exposing unfortunate edge-case handling in GnuPG.
Thanks for the diagnosis, Phil and Simon.
Please file a bug report about this at https://dev.gnupg.org/ so that
On 2018-01-22 18:06, André Colomb wrote:
>> the systemd user service takes care of automatically launching the
>> gpg-agent when the user connects to it via the ssh-agent protocol, so
>> this isn't required when using systemd.
>
> I can't see how it does that in my packaged Ubuntu version
Thanks, Phil -
I appreciate your help and your response.
Thanks,
Dave
Sent from my iPhone
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 9:51 PM, Phil Pennock wrote:
>
> Looks to me like a GnuPG bug. In fact, it looks very much like
> https://dev.gnupg.org/T1447 which has been marked