IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] v5 interoperability

Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com> Sun, 14 April 2024 09:39 UTC

Return-Path: <andrewg@andrewg.com>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1DFCC14F60D for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 02:39:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=andrewg.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hWe87V_nRXRP for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 02:39:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fum.andrewg.com (fum.andrewg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f9:c011:23ad::1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E903C14F5FE for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 02:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=andrewg.com; s=andrewg-com; t=1713087567; bh=MR/m5hX1yAzMnLTrgpECDxHCAfz5Lhv67/g4+m85cYQ=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=MZkBPBh+FBtlEPMrXYjhTa5h+oVn4eAXQ1DTlwINZzuqRVQSWYNpO1EHU0iNKSGYf v8dtqstgqubThkCZCSg5cHaSP4d3UINAMMXIWPzaVAbDO4BQZbijx6NJgHC90QGpwk YdPOKHINmSr+cm9LLp2KtsFpQo34JXdGrgUe0kKlMBlabankf/1Ox3L39wopswXH1I 19wwRrsdn4OPv7VfdXetHaEG9FzmEsIQ7ewi59iTgh+ZBvq2Aj4rBSBQ4OrtlHMspa BtnPHQZOiyyPftzN6s/o6QQZzDlrUWfmEOq2KDg29OVTs9WxB96MI7f/n4ZOaONFcz +O8ktiaLQixOg==
Received: from smtpclient.apple (serenity [IPv6:fc93:5820:7349:eda2:99a7::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by fum.andrewg.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 80B9B5DE5E; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 09:39:27 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5A5EFDB9-5DDD-453A-9496-5B9ED52A5389"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 16.0 \(3731.700.6.1.1\))
From: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>
In-Reply-To: <877ch0mgvj.fsf@jacob.g10code.de>
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 10:39:13 +0100
Cc: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg=40andrewg.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, Paul Schaub <vanitasvitae@riseup.net>, openpgp@ietf.org
Message-Id: <79DADE51-A8B4-4978-B475-7065D1D37CE6@andrewg.com>
References: <AF3B73A2-09D7-4BB3-9826-92E6CA18C6A9@riseup.net> <5C762D0A-06A8-4E8A-B6EA-B427880642EB@andrewg.com> <877ch0mgvj.fsf@jacob.g10code.de>
To: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3731.700.6.1.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/3cTJGowBL4mt08Vgzw0qMl-bwP8>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] v5 interoperability
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 09:39:36 -0000

On 14 Apr 2024, at 10:29, Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> wrote:
> 
> Right, your v6 signatures re-introduced the old flaw of not signing the
> meta data of the literal data packet.  Something we had fixed before
> that fix was removed after fall 2021.

I’m not one of the authors of that draft, they’re not “mine”. I didn’t even contribute a single suggestion to their design. But you will remember that I tried to address your concerns by standardising *your* Meta Data subpacket, an effort that you rejected (but which I am still willing to work on, in the interests of ordinary users).

A

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email