IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Expected client behaviour ambiguity in signature verification

Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com> Fri, 08 July 2022 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <d.huigens@protonmail.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 300FEC157B41 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 04:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.106
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.106 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, 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=protonmail.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 Bv-NCnc_oYqa for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-40131.protonmail.ch (mail-40131.protonmail.ch [185.70.40.131]) (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 71512C157B35 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2022 04:37:09 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:36:56 +0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1657280226; x=1657539426; bh=6PcGqIB0pG5bF0plfVGnHocIG17OZF+agQae/iMHRmk=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Reply-To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To: References:Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To: Feedback-ID:Message-ID; b=iDjQ0UVNOgtnBBf73SZzcbJtoElumCYGFsxEF25ylKPPuP53szYffNTB2c3ilQDve UxjNon3vQobmxhCiI3OOfg5VnK5o+Z62zwTMtTwY81vVCrmoeBr5qeiLBHGmdLYSDv i0EHs+ea2Kaaf4ZtPrcP9Pq6TSbw5yFi9i7JrSpkNUwgPx3Q0pMVyv/3XBohHOtFuD htsR3cyGni4Xka2euwuk0SD9fDX7rLRHWcH27aB/Ie5dS4H154VidcA/K9If+Yj2+P zEoLmS5uhX2izJQkdky2uB/MT0eH8J3/m0GJBK7pTI2hWVNj1BvNUH4AMbhcLqhZXN uEcRfKUuV7Xkw==
To: Justus Winter <justus@sequoia-pgp.org>
From: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Gallagher <andrewg@andrewg.com>, openpgp@ietf.org
Reply-To: Daniel Huigens <d.huigens@protonmail.com>
Message-ID: <Gjz95aE4GW3B-PIIf3VWobfxKwlSPyI-yU5L7B5zM-6QBv48RXZrrXvIkFQ5NUd9g64Ai9Adzqxahueo5LEqWRCY-Hjj9dRZeI2JYlaWqd4=@protonmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <87pmifx2km.fsf@europ.lan>
References: <d0483dcb-025b-37c2-9a26-e42133b506ac@andrewg.com> <rFGQzFpo7YRJdeCEIqSDMYYZhf_svkyx8UHG3GE__VMZFj2pRAbcTa-G9jjQoppUln1XNblYl6Lbjn7wMDMLqwzTJxB-hO0RwAofwLJL7wc=@protonmail.com> <87sfnbx3we.fsf@europ.lan> <HcMPnSrBDMEb2UqLScL9OTrornuJln5O0WG0ZBe2FLW3Q3YbJ9plFBKGJGdWYyVF-Wz9HA6supa9tXH5y8DfJTe05cUD5Uk0VciCnGuQNMo=@protonmail.com> <87pmifx2km.fsf@europ.lan>
Feedback-ID: 2934448:user:proton
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/CydPP31TnfT3at0y0ObRoF647r4>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Expected client behaviour ambiguity in signature verification
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: Fri, 08 Jul 2022 11:37:14 -0000

On Friday, July 8th, 2022 at 13:32, Justus Winter wrote:

> Are you willing to ignore a revocation just because it is in the wrong
> place?

I guess so, because we're doing so today :')

> Note that this can happen even if producer of the signature and consumer
> are acting correctly. In fact, that is exactly what happened before:
>
> https://dev.gnupg.org/T2236
>
> AIUI it was a SKS bug that messed up the certificate.

Interesting, thanks. I hadn't seen that before, but yeah, I would still
prefer to fix these keys on keyservers instead, if at all possible.

Best,
Daniel

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email