From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 01 06:08:48 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EhmIy-0005wV-FQ for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 01 Dec 2005 06:08:48 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA23249 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 06:08:01 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB1AdSsK038043; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB1AdSNg038042; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB1AdRDF038034 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3DE64067; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:39:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <438ED2EF.8050302@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:39:43 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Some -15 comments References: <20051115181657.8A9FF57F2F@finney.org> <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> <20051130154725.GA23127@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051130154725.GA23127@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:07:20AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > >>As for the subject of our discussion, I think that we all agree that the >>spec for 0x80 should be stripped of "a note from one person to another..." >>bit., because one major implementation does not treat it that way. Yes. >>The only disagreement seems to be whether "a note from one person to >>another" should be retained as an interoperable feature or should it be >>delegated to private notation namespace. >> >>The disadvantage of the latter approach would be that various implementers >>would (possibly) implement this same semantics with a host of different >>notation names and won't interoperate. >> >>Now, I can see that implementing the former using a type flag also causes >>problems. Maybe, it should be a common, ITEF-namespace notation? Or an >>entirely separate subpacket type akin to "reason for revocation"? My view - it has to be outside the spec. "a note from one person to another" is a very high level thing and we'll never be able to nail down what it means. And if we do, we then have to add all the other variants like "a note from one person to two persons..." "a note from the program to a person..." "a note in XML..." >>I am not sure. But in either case, as far as immediate modifications to the >>standard text are concerned, this "a note..." part should be removed from >>the definition of 0x80, because it means something that 0x80 definitely >>doesn't. Whether or not to add that text someplace else is an entirely >>different question. > > > Is this rough consensus? Removing that part, yes, I would agree. iang PS: point of order here - as we are in last call, what are we "permitted" to change? Only completely wrong things? Or is this flexible? iang From SadieBanks@noreasonbooking.com Sat Dec 03 22:32:29 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eikc1-000185-AE for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:32:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA29823 for ; Sat, 3 Dec 2005 22:31:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eikwz-0004hX-LJ for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:54:12 -0500 Received: from 85-65-89-205.barak-online.net ([85.65.89.205]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Eikbk-0005tG-UN for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:32:15 -0500 Received: from Ba3@localhost by y3Px.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Sat, 03 Dec 2005 22:02:42 -0600 Message-ID: From: "Pat Delong" Reply-To: "Pat Delong" To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org, bodyeer@ietf.org, mplsissues@ietf.org Subject: Windows XP Pro $49.95, Office 2003 $69.95 Microsoft Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 05:02:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: SadieBanks@noreasonbooking.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--3943495995817717448" X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fe105289edd72640d9f392da880eefa2 6Jo ----3943495995817717448 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable q
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me
SEARCH

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

=
= = = <= td width=3D4> 
<= p align=3Dcenter>  ON SALE NOW!

 = ;1 Windows XP Pro SP2
&n= bsp;2 Creative Suite 2
&= nbsp;3 MS Office 2003 Pro
 4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
 5 Macromedia Flash 8
 6<= /td> Dreamweaver 8
 7 Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
 9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
 10 Borland Architect 2005
  See more by this manufact= urer
   Microsoft
  = Macromedia
 =   = Adobe
  Customers also bought
   <= font face=3Dverdana,arial,helvetica size=3D1> these other items...

Microsoft Windows XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

Choose:<= td width=3D135>
 

=
List Pr= ice:$299.00
Pric= e:$49.99
You Save:$249.01 (80%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coup= on Code: v4zFvZBZJ
Platform: Windows XP

Sales= Rank: #1
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon E= xpires: December 31st, 2005
Average C= ustomer Review:3D"5 Based on 14812 reviews. Write a review.

<= td width=3D100% height=3D55>

Adobe Creative Suite 2 *Pre= mium*
Ado= be

Choose:<= tr>
 

Lis= t Price:$1199.00
P= rice:$149.99
You Save:<= /td>$1049.01 (95%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: uH1NE2
Platform: Windows XP

Sal= es Rank: #2
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon= Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average= Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 1593 reviews. Write a review.

Microsoft O= ffice 2003 *Professional*
Microsoft

=
Choose= :
 

<= /p>

List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save:$429.0= 1 (85%)

<= img border=3D0 src=3Dhttp://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/buttons/add-to= -cart-yellow-short.gif width=3D113 height=3D23>

Availabilit= y: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: JwpH1T
= Platform: Wind= ows XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements=   |  Other Versions=
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, = 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5= Based on 1465 reviews. Write a revie= w.

Adobe Acrobat Professional V 7.0
= Adobe

=
Choose:
=  

List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save:$429.0= 1 (85%)

<= img border=3D0 src=3Dhttp://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/buttons/add-to= -cart-yellow-short.gif width=3D113 height=3D23>

Availabilit= y: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: KNTQoUcU Platform: Wi= ndows XP

Sales Rank: #4
System requiremen= ts  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st= , 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 1421 reviews. Write a rev= iew.

=
----3943495995817717448-- From abrinq@belindajohnson.com Sun Dec 04 14:01:27 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eiz71-0005Ev-5T for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:01:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA06865 for ; Sun, 4 Dec 2005 14:00:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from 88-111-58-138.dynamic.dsl.as9105.com ([88.111.58.138] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EizS7-0000Oc-1d for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 04 Dec 2005 14:23:18 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c5f903$75699900$0100007f@localhost> From: "Juan Ward" To: Subject: Buy OEM Software Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:01:06 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5F903.75699900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5F903.75699900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 34 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 48 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 44 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5F903.75699900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
Microsoft

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
   
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 42 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 36 review! s)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 36 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5F903.75699900-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 05 14:50:55 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjMMQ-0006D3-BA for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:50:55 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA02846 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:02 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JWRJY091897; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5JWRdi091896; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JWQaE091887 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5JWOS18352 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:24 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5JWLX6023652 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:21 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5JWIvO024780 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5JWIWm024779 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Some -15 text nits, part 2 Message-ID: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Here is the second half of a -15 proofreading. As before, these are just language nits, and should not have any functional significance. I did note a few items that might be considered functional, but I'm sending them in a different mail so as to not mix them up. Many apologies for the late submission of these. ***** 5.1. Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets says "Note that when an implementation forms several PKESKs with one session key, forming a message that can be decrypted by several keys, the implementation MUST make new PKCS-1 encoding for each key." This needs an "a", so as to read "...MUST make a new PKCS-1 encoding..." ***** 5.2.3.3. Notes on Self-Signatures says "If the key is located by key ID, the algorithm of the primary User ID of the key provides the default symmetric algorithm." Suggest changing "default" to "preferred", as preferred is the word used in all the other examples there. ***** 5.2.3.7. Preferred symmetric algorithms says "Algorithm numbers in section 9." This should be "Algorithm numbers are in section 9." (i.e. add an "are"). ***** 5.2.3.15. Revocation key mentions "1 octet of algid" in the definition. Suggest "1 octet of PK algorithm ID" or similar as we never define "algid" in the document. ***** 5.2.3.23. Reason for Revocation has a sentence "Such a revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 subpacket." Suggest changing this to "Such a revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 code." or similar. 0x20 in this case is not a subpacket, and the rest of this section refers to it as a "code". ***** 5.3. Symmetric-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets has two small formatting bugs. The lines beginning "Zero or more Encrypted Session Key packets" and "The decryption result consists" are both indented an extra space. ***** 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: V2 keys are identical to the deprecated V3 keys except for the version number. An implementation MUST NOT generate them and may accept or reject them as it sees fit. Suggest capitalizing the "may". ***** 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats has the sentence "The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private key that can undetectably modify the secret key". That doesn't really parse well. Suggest "The reason for this is that there are some attacks that involve undetectably modifying the secret key". ***** 5.6. Compressed Data Packet (Tag 8) has a note about ZIP and ZLIB, but not BZip2. It might be good to add: BZip2-compressed packets are compressed using the BZip2 algorithm. ***** 6.6. Example of an ASCII Armored Message says "Note that this example is indented by two spaces." The example is, in fact, indented by three spaces, but even so should probably be indented by four spaces like the rest of the document. (Hey, I did say these were nits). ***** 9.4. Hash Algorithms mentions MD5. Suggest adding a reminder to this section that MD5 is deprecated. ***** 10.1. Transferable Public Keys has a paragraph beginning "After the User ID or Attribute packets there may be one or more Subkey packets." This should be "zero or more" Subkey packets, as is correctly stated a few paragraphs up from there. In the same section, there is a paragraph beginning "Each Subkey packet must be followed by one Signature packet", there is a sentence "For subkeys that can issue signatures, the subkey binding signature must contain an embedded signature subpacket with a primary key binding signature (0x19) issued by the subkey on the top level key". Suggest capitalizing the MUST. ***** In section 10.2. OpenPGP Messages, the paragraph beginning "In addition, decrypting a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet" has a blank line in the middle of the paragraph. ***** Section 11.1. Key Structures says "A subkey always has a single signature after it that is issued using the primary key to tie the two keys together. This binding signature may be in either V3 or V4 format, but SHOULD be V4." Suggest adding "Subkeys that can issue signatures must have a V4 binding signature due to the REQUIRED embedded primary key binding signature." ***** 12.1. Symmetric Algorithm Preferences says "Since it is found on a self-signature, it is possible that a keyholder may have different preferences." Suggest adding the word "multiple" as in "... multiple different preferences." In the same section, in the last paragraph, suggest removing the parentheses around the Alice example. ***** Section 13. Security Considerations says: * SHA384 requires the same work as SHA512. In general, there are few reasons to use it -- you need a situation where one needs more security than SHA256, but do not want to have the 512-bit data length. "but do not want" should probably be "but does not want". ***** 14. Implementation Nits says: * PGP 2.6.X and 5.0 do not trim trailing whitespace from a "canonical text" signature. They only remove it from cleartext signatures. These signatures are not OpenPGP compliant -- OpenPGP requires trimming the whitespace. If you wish to interoperate with PGP 2.6.X or PGP 5, you may wish to accept these non-compliant signatures. This item is no longer needed as the draft no longer requires trimming whitespace from canonical text signatures. ***** In section 16. References (Normative), the reference to BZ2 points to . This is no longer correct, and should be . ***** In section 17. References (Non-Normative), some of the references are no longer referred to (BLEICHENBACHER, DONNERHACKE, RFC1983). I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, as they are not normative anyway. Either way, I do suggest changing "Non-Normative" to "Informative" as that is the current recommended wording on rfc-editor.org. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 05 15:03:33 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjMYf-0001gH-I6 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:03:33 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA04645 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:02:40 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JoOQo093630; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5JoO4d093629; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JoNGx093623 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5JoMS18607 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:22 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5JoIX6023736 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:18 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5JoG5A024799 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5JoGGF024798 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Other -15 comments Message-ID: <20051205195016.GA24566@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I recently did a read-over of -15. I've already sent the minor text nits in other mail. These are comments that rise (marginally) above simple wording questions. Much apologies for the late submission. ***** 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says "Third, there are minor weaknesses in the MD5 hash algorithm that make developers prefer other algorithms." Suggest dropping the word "minor". ***** Section 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: V3 keys are deprecated; an implementation SHOULD NOT generate a V3 key, but MAY accept it. but section 11.1. Key Structures says: V3 keys are deprecated. Implementations MUST NOT generate new V3 keys, but MAY continue to use existing ones. These can't both be correct. I lean towards MUST NOT here, personally. ***** The first two paragraphs in section 6.4. Decoding Radix-64 contradict each other. The first says that all non-radix-64 characters must be ignored. The second says that non-radix-64 characters probably indicate a transmission error, "about which a warning message or even a message rejection might be appropriate under some circumstances". Suggest going with the second. ***** David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 05 18:16:57 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjPZp-0004Es-N1 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:16:57 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29249 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:16:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5N3RG4021125; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5N3RKR021124; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5N3R3h021116 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5N3NS23732; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:23 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5N3KX6024434; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5N3His025044; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5N3HD0025043; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Cc: Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures Message-ID: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > I was working on my signing code and realised that some issues > previously discussed do not appear to be resolved in -15 (its possible > some of these are also new). > > a) V4 signatures don't mention how one actually calculates the signature > - the text only appears for V3 signatures. I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Isn't this stated in 5.2.4, in the paragraph beginning "Once the data body is hashed" ? > b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length > of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By > inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than > the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if > that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and within it in 3447. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 05 22:42:45 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjTj2-0004Vq-V3 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 05 Dec 2005 22:42:45 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA26990 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:41:54 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB63ScLb051459; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB63ScdN051458; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB63SbCW051451 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB63SYS26222; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:34 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB63SVX6025213; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:31 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB63SRQa025297; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB63SRod025296; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures Message-ID: <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:03:17PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length > > of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By > > inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than > > the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if > > that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). > > I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the > modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of > EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading > zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and > within it in 3447. I did some digging and I think I see the problem here. 2440 and 1991 correctly describe the encoding. The instructions in 2440bis will not work as EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (the RFC-2437 version) is only part of the correct encoding. The encoding is effectively to calculate EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE (m, emLen - 1) and then prefix the resulting octet string with a zero octet. There is a similar situation with leading zeroes for EME-PKCS1-v1_5 for the encrypted session key packets. To make things more complicated, EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE and EME-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE in RFC-3447 *are* the correct encodings, leading zero and all. Since 3447 obsoletes 2437 anyway, maybe the easiest fix is to use 3447 and add a note along the lines of "Use 3447 and not 2437 - we really mean it". David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 06 06:07:27 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjafP-0004Hl-4Y for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:07:27 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA10454 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:06:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6Ar886004507; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6Ar8OU004506; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6Ar7Fg004498 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2EB33C1C; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:53:02 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43956D8F.2070105@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:53:03 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> I was working on my signing code and realised that some issues >> previously discussed do not appear to be resolved in -15 (its possible >> some of these are also new). >> >> a) V4 signatures don't mention how one actually calculates the signature >> - the text only appears for V3 signatures. > > I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Isn't this stated in 5.2.4, > in the paragraph beginning "Once the data body is hashed" ? No, that tells you how to calculate the hash, not what you do with it once you have calculated it. That is, padding, encryption, etc. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 06 06:18:42 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjaqI-0007IE-Nj for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 06:18:42 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA12294 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 06:17:51 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6B05r2005609; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6B05B4005608; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6B04JW005601 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3997933C1C; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:00:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43956F34.9030106@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:00:04 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:03:17PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > >>> b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length >>> of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By >>> inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than >>> the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if >>> that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). >> I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the >> modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of >> EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading >> zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and >> within it in 3447. > > I did some digging and I think I see the problem here. 2440 and 1991 > correctly describe the encoding. The instructions in 2440bis will not > work as EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (the RFC-2437 version) is only part of the > correct encoding. The encoding is effectively to calculate > EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE (m, emLen - 1) and then prefix the resulting > octet string with a zero octet. There is a similar situation with > leading zeroes for EME-PKCS1-v1_5 for the encrypted session key > packets. > > To make things more complicated, EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE and > EME-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE in RFC-3447 *are* the correct encodings, leading > zero and all. > > Since 3447 obsoletes 2437 anyway, maybe the easiest fix is to use 3447 > and add a note along the lines of "Use 3447 and not 2437 - we really > mean it". Assuming you are right about 3447 (I haven't checked it), then definitely. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 06 11:21:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjfZU-0000f0-9i for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:21:40 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA19079 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:20:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6G04C5041664; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6G04Lc041663; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:04 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from thingol.aachen.utimaco.de (Thingol.aachen.utimaco.de [194.245.91.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6G02vN041655 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Holger.Sesterhenn@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de) Received: (from mail@localhost) by thingol.aachen.utimaco.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id jB6G01TB018910 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100 From: Holger Sesterhenn Organization: Utimaco Safeware AG, NL Aachen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050715 Thunderbird/1.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 X-SecurE-Mail-Gateway: Version: 5.00.1.1 (smtpd: 6.53.2.2) Date: 20051206155630Z Subject: Charset for embedded filename? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi, draft 15 says in chapter 5.9. "Literal Data Packet (Tag 11)" [...] - File name as a string (one-octet length, followed by a file name). This may be a zero-length string. Commonly, if the source of the encrypted data is a file, this will be the name of the encrypted file. An implementation MAY consider the file name in the literal packet to be a more authoritative name than the actual file name. [...] Is this filename (string) treated as UTF-8? How to convert special chars (e.g. German umlauts) if its not UTF-8? -- Best Regards, Holger Sesterhenn --- Internet http://www.utimaco.com/smgw From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 06 14:18:21 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjiKT-0002m8-LP for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:18:21 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA10935 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 14:17:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6IvKxd062952; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6IvKSp062951; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6IvJsH062944 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1Eji6Q-0004CU-6R for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:03:50 +0100 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ejhty-0008F4-Nd; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:50:58 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: Holger Sesterhenn Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Charset for embedded filename? References: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Organisation: g10 Code GmbH OpenPGP: id=5B0358A2; url=finger:wk@g10code.com Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:50:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> (Holger Sesterhenn's message of "Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100") Message-ID: <87u0dmkqjx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100, Holger Sesterhenn said: > Is this filename (string) treated as UTF-8? Yes: 3.4. Text Unless otherwise specified, the character set for text is the UTF-8 [RFC2279] encoding of Unicode [ISO10646]. Shalom-Salam, Werner From MelanieBarber@bastel-trend-shop.com Tue Dec 06 21:15:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EjoqB-0005HL-LH; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:15:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA22463; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 21:14:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EjpBm-0002vE-1l; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:37:51 -0500 Received: from 12-202-194-248.client.insightbb.com ([12.202.194.248]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Ejoq0-0003sm-1W; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:15:20 -0500 Received: from U7Me@localhost by 1q6p.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Tue, 06 Dec 2005 21:08:07 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Terri Samuels" Reply-To: "Terri Samuels" To: ooipr-wg@ietf.org, ool-admin@ietf.org, ootippm-archive@ietf.org, openpgp-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org, ops-chairs@ietf.org, ops-nm@ietf.org Subject: All Symantec software for cheap Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:04:07 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: MelanieBarber@bastel-trend-shop.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--YKQsZRcVg8RVAmuTL" X-Spam-Score: 4.6 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: 10d2fdecab7a7fa796e06e001d026c91 zvP ----YKQsZRcVg8RVAmuTL Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Q
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me
<= td vAlign=3Dtop align=3Dleft width=3D530>

Microsoft Wind= ows XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

=
SEARCH
<= /td>

T= OP 10 NEW TITLES
<= /tr>= =   

 ON SALE NOW!

 1 Windows XP Pro SP2
 2= Creative Suite 2
 3 MS Office 2003 Pro
4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
5= Macromedia Flash 8
 6<= /td> Dreamweaver 8
 7 Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
&= nbsp;9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
 10 Borland Architect 2005
  See more by this manufacturer
   Microsoft
   Macromedia
   A= dobe
  Customers al= so bought
   these other items...

=
Choose:<= /b>
<= select name=3Dedit1> =  
List Price:$299.00
Price:$49.99
You Save= :$249.01 (80%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: 7wg4nn
Platform: Windows XP

Sal= es Rank: #1
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires:<= /b> December 31st, 2005
Average Customer = Review:3D"5 Based on 18137 reviews. Write a review.

Adobe Creative Suite 2 *Premium*
= Adobe

Choose:
<= a href=3Dhttp://wifioem.com/?T>  

<= /a>

$1049.01 (95= %)
List Price:$1199.00
Price:$149.99=
You Save:



Availability: Ava= ilable for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: wWfjS
Platform= : Windows XP

<= p>Sales Rank: #2
System requirements  | = ; Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 16289 review= s. Write a review.

<= hr noShade SIZE=3D1>

Microsoft Office 2003 *Professional*
<= a href=3Dhttp://wifioem.com/?K>Microsoft

Choose:
 
=

<= /p>

List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save:$429.0= 1 (85%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: 9X3W4sJ7K
Platform: Window= s XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements&nb= sp; |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:=3D"5 Based on 17= 328 reviews. Write a review.

<= p>Adobe Acrobat Professional V 7.0
Adobe

Choose:
 

= =
List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You = Save:$429.01 (85%)

<= a href=3Dhttp://wifioem.com/?3>

Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: w5PJEMH
Platform: Windows XP

= Sales Rank: #4
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expire= s: December 31st, 2005
Average Custom= er Review:3D"5 Based on 1813 reviews. Write a review.

----YKQsZRcVg8RVAmuTL-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 05:10:38 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkIjW-000259-Iz for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:10:38 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA23153 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:09:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB89qdD7024851; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB89qddA024850; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB89qcno024844 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947AE65200 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:52:52 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://iang.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: [Fwd: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit As a fascinating comment on the trickiness that is cleartext signing, the below just popped up on a user list. Obviously, the app offers the useful feature of reformatting the text according to some metric. Just as obviously this goes way beyond the discussion of whether the whitespace should be stripped from the end, or whether the last newline is added or imputed or stripped or ignored... and the text is likely no longer comparable canonically or otherwise. (I never did see a resolution to that question? What then was the rule on the last newline?) iang -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:25:34 -0700 From: Nick Andriash Reply-To: pgp-users@cryptorights.org To: pgp-users@lists.cryptorights.org I just purchased PGP Desktop Pro and am finding that when I go to clearsign a message, PGP is actually re-flowing and/or word wrapping the text. I use BeckyMail which is as close to a WYSIWYG Editor as there is. When I finish typing my message or editing my reply, I used to simply clearsign the message and send it... there was no word wrapping before signing, except with this latest version of PGP. Does anyone know if or where the setting for that word wrap may be? -- ~~Nick Andriash~~ Courtenay, B.C. Canada __________________________________________________________ the PGP-USERS mailing list Home Pg: cryptorights.org/pgp-users Charter: www.cryptorights.org/lists/pgp-users/charter.html From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 05:55:36 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkJR1-00038F-IA for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 05:55:35 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28474 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 05:54:41 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8AfrWc037216; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8AfqwE037212; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8AfpIf037199 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 879EF2B47CD; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:41:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:41:50 +0100 To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3] Message-ID: <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:52:52AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > (I never did see a resolution to that question? > What then was the rule on the last newline?) In order for the cleartext signed message to verify, there is no need to add another newline; the standard allows for text messages where the last line is not terminated. GPG actually REMOVES the last newline, if the input comes from the console, in order to allow for cleartext messages with an unterminated last line. I like this feature a lot. If terminating the last newline is not required, then one-pass signed and clearsigned text messages can be converted back-and-forth without access to the secret key (or any cryptography, for that matter). I think this feature is worth preserving. Thus, I propose not requiring the termination of the last line (and not terminating it automagically). -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 06:56:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkKNn-0006RW-7C for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 06:56:19 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA05366 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:55:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8BhNmj050986; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8BhNuC050985; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8BhN6K050979 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7225651AA; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:43:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> In-Reply-To: <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:52:52AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > > >>(I never did see a resolution to that question? >>What then was the rule on the last newline?) > > > In order for the cleartext signed message to verify, there is no need to add > another newline; the standard allows for text messages where the last line > is not terminated. GPG actually REMOVES the last newline, if the input comes > from the console, in order to allow for cleartext messages with an > unterminated last line. I like this feature a lot. > > If terminating the last newline is not required, then one-pass signed and > clearsigned text messages can be converted back-and-forth without access to > the secret key (or any cryptography, for that matter). I think this feature > is worth preserving. > > Thus, I propose not requiring the termination of the last line (and not > terminating it automagically). So, what you are proposing is that when an unterminated message is signed: -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- this message was signed unterminated -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- b1ab1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- It recovers as "this message was signed unterminated" as it went in? And then this becomes: -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- this message was already terminated -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- b1ab1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- which extracts as "this message was already terminated " (i.e., preserving its one newline). OK, I'd be happy with that. As long as it is a solid rule. But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG architects on this? iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 07:43:23 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkL71-0000Tk-21 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:43:23 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA09091 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:41:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CRNLD059225; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8CRNES059224; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CRM9n059217 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1EkKyA-0003z8-Ig for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:33:54 +0100 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1EkKnd-0004W6-Bn; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:23:01 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: Ian G Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Organisation: g10 Code GmbH OpenPGP: id=5B0358A2; url=finger:wk@g10code.com Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:23:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> (Ian G.'s message of "Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000") Message-ID: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > architects on this? I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the specs. Salam-Shalom, Werner From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 08:00:05 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkLNU-0004mY-Rm for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:00:05 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA10699 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 07:59:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8ChbjM060591; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8ChbYM060590; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8ChaOE060583 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CD43C5F; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:43:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:43:35 +0100 To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208124335.GA24621@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:43:48AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > So, what you are proposing is that when > an unterminated message is signed: > > -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > this message was signed unterminated > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > b1ab1a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > It recovers as "this message was signed unterminated" > as it went in? And then this becomes: > > > -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > this message was already terminated > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > b1ab1a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > which extracts as "this message was already terminated > " (i.e., preserving its one newline). Exactly. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 08:03:56 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkLRE-0005Qe-Qw for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 08:03:56 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA11129 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 08:02:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CnucV061292; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8CnuGk061291; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8Cnt8k061277 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 55D5262; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:49:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:49:54 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208124954.GB24621@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > > > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > > architects on this? > > I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > specs. I, for one, like the way GPG behaves in this respect very much. Any change to the spec that would make gpg's current behavior non-compliant should be considered harmful, IMHO. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 08 10:05:48 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EkNL7-0007Y0-F5 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 10:05:48 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA24853 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 10:04:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8EqDLS087456; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8EqDv0087455; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8EqCfA087439 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB8EqAS31564 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:11 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB8Eq6X6006005 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:06 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB8Eq51H006000 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB8Eq5fe005999 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > > > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > > architects on this? > > I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > specs. I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the presence or lack of line ending on the last line. David From bali1406@basspeo.com Sat Dec 10 05:28:07 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1El1xX-0004Ju-BW for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:28:07 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA08998 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:27:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from [221.145.207.77] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1El1xr-00014W-Mq for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 05:28:28 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c5fd9e$2063d200$0100007f@localhost> From: "Amir Harris" To: Subject: Need S0ftware? Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 19:27:58 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FD9E.2063D200" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FD9E.2063D200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 41 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 31 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 31 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FD9E.2063D200 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 43 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 33 revie! ws)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 42 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FD9E.2063D200-- From 5np@6blue.com Sat Dec 10 11:19:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1El7RP-0006J0-Bh for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:19:19 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA11695 for ; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:18:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from [69.1.104.99] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1El7Ro-0002vr-3U for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sat, 10 Dec 2005 11:19:45 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c5fdcf$3b9b0580$0100007f@localhost> From: "Omar Phillips" <5np@6blue.com> To: Subject: Photoshop, Windows, Office Date: Sat, 10 Dec 2005 08:19:12 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FDCF.3B9B0580" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FDCF.3B9B0580 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 46 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 50 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 36 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FDCF.3B9B0580 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 41 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 38 reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 37 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C5FDCF.3B9B0580-- From 20calculus@80077.com Tue Dec 13 22:03:27 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmMvP-0005Oh-1h for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:03:27 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA14168 for ; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:02:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from cpe-66-74-201-141.san.res.rr.com ([66.74.201.141] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EmMw6-0000AK-No for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:04:12 -0500 Received: from [205.248.102.79] (port=25 helo=mailc.microsoft.com) by mailc.microsoft.com with smtp for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:03:16 -0800 Received: from [32.97.182.141] (port=25 helo=e1.ny.us.ibm.com) by e1.ny.us.ibm.com with smtp for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:03:16 -0800 Message-ID: <000001c60084$ae80d680$0100007f@localhost> From: "Gerardo Adams" <20calculus@80077.com> To: Subject: Hey baby, found this site and wanted you to check it out firstNeed Software? Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:03:16 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60084.AE80D680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 2.3 (++) X-Scan-Signature: c0bedb65cce30976f0bf60a0a39edea4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60084.AE80D680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finally the real thing- no more ripoffs! Enhancment Patches are hot right now, VERY hot! Unfortunately, most are cheap imitiations and do very little to increase your size and stamina. Well this is the real thing, not an imitation! One of the very originals, the absolutely strongest Patch available, anywhere! A top team of British scientists and medical doctors have worked to develop the state-of-the-art Pen1s Enlargment Patch delivery system which automatically increases pen1s size up to 3-4 full inches. The patches are the easiest and most effective way to increase your size. You won't have to take pills, get under the knife to perform expensive and very painful surgery, use any pumps or other devices. No one will ever find out that you are using our product. Just apply one patch on your body and wear it for 3 days and you will start noticing dramatic results. Millions of men are taking advantage of this revolutionary new product - Don't be left behind! As an added incentive, they are offering huge discount specials right now, check out the site to see for yourself! Here's the link to check out! http://www.befaso.net/pt/?46&ekvfj ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60084.AE80D680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Finally the real thing - no more tip-offs! Enhancment Patches are hot right now, VERY hot! Unfortunately, most are cheap imitiations and do very little to increase your size and stamina. Well this is the real thing, not an imitation! One of the very originals, the absolutely strongest Patch available, anywhere!

A top team of British scientists and medical doctors have worked to develop the state-of-the-art Pen1s Enlargment Patch delivery system which automatically increases pen1s size up to 3-4 full inches. The patches are the easiest and most effective way to increase your size. You won't have to take pills, get under the knife to perform expensive and very painful surgery, use any pumps or other devices. No one will ever find out that you are using our product. Just apply one patch on your body and wear it for 3 days and you will start noticing dramatic results.

Millions of men are taking advantage of this revolutionary new product - Don't be left behind!

As an added incentive, they are offering huge discount specials right now, check out the site to see for yourself!

Here's the link to check out!

NamePatchesRegularNow
Steel Package10 Patches$79.95$49.95Free shipping
Silver Package25 Patches$129.95$99.95Free shipping and exercise manual included
Gold Package40 Patches$189.95$149.95Free shipping and exercise manual included
Platinum Package65 Patches$259.95$199.95Free shipping and exercise manual included
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60084.AE80D680-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 14 09:15:46 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EmXPz-00087w-Ug for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:15:46 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29941 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:14:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBEDuHdY019155; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBEDuHKH019154; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBEDuGGe019143 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBEDuFS12203 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:15 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBEDuDX6014467 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:13 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBEDu9ts022957 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBEDu9in022956 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Secret key transport Message-ID: <20051214135609.GA22783@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Well into comically late in the game here, but a question recently came up about the secret key transport format. Namely, is there one? 2440bis has a public key transport format (the whole of section 10.1), and the format of secret key and secret subkey packets is defined, but there doesn't seem to be an analogue to section 10.1 for secret keys. For example, I've seen secret keys in this format: - Secret key packet - User ID packet - Selfsig on user ID - Secret subkey packet - Selfsig on subkey I've also seen secret keys in this format: - Secret key packet - User ID packet - Secret subkey packet (i.e. missing the selfsigs). The first example strikes me as preferable as there is a mild benefit to having the secret key format parallel the public key format in that an implementation can extract the public key from the secret key automatically. The second example requires a public key to be sent in addition to the secret key to get the selfsigs (while the selfsig on the user ID is optional, the one on the subkey isn't). Either way, though, 2440bis seems silent on this subject. Is this something that needs a line or two of text? David From JulesThacker@auxbil2000.com Fri Dec 16 03:22:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EnArI-0003Wu-2v for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:22:32 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA17122 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:21:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EnAsl-0004AE-33 for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:24:09 -0500 Received: from [211.190.90.121] (helo=65.246.255.50) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EnAr5-0001l0-2Q for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2005 03:22:19 -0500 Received: from Ej2@localhost by 1MAZ.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Fri, 16 Dec 2005 06:58:55 -0200 Message-ID: From: "Lakisha Holmes" Reply-To: "Lakisha Holmes" To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org Cc: bodyeer@ietf.org, mplsissues@ietf.org Subject: Photoshop CS2 9.0 $69.95 Photoshop Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 05:59:55 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: JulesThacker@auxbil2000.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--264742268165316" X-Spam-Score: 4.8 (++++) X-Scan-Signature: f60fbf3dbcaca652b6d10036f0630412 seDT ----264742268165316 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable N
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me

<= td vAlign=3Dbottom> SEARCH
<= /table>

T= OP 10 NEW TITLES
<= /tr>= <= td width=3D4> <= td width=3D4> <= td width=3D4> =

 ON SALE NOW!

 1 Windows XP Pro SP2
 = 2 Creative Suite 2
 3 MS Office 2003 Pro
4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
5 Macromedia Flash 8
6 Dreamweaver 8
 7 Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
 9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
 10<= /td> Borland Architect 2005
 <= b> See more by this manufacturer<= /span>
   Microsoft
 <= /td>  Macromedia
   Adobe
  = Customers also bought
 <= /td>  these other items...

M= icrosoft Windows XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

Choose:
 
<= /td>

<= td class=3Dsmall height=3D18 width=3D105>$49.99<= /tr><= /tr>
List Price:$299.00=
Price:
You Save:$249.01 (80%)



Availability: Available for INS= TANT download!
Coupon Code: 8upPInt
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #1
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 1679 reviews. Write a review.

Adobe Creative Suit= e 2 *Premium*
Adobe

<= table border=3D0>
Choose:
 

List Price:<= /b>$1199.00
Price:$149.99
You Save:$1049.01 (95%)


Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code:= GFNUC3
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: = #2
System = requirements  |  Other Vers= ions
Date Coupon Expires: Decembe= r 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:= 3D"5 Based on 129185 reviews. Write a= review.

Microsoft Office 2003 *Professiona= l*
Microsoft<= /a>

Choose:=
 

= =
List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You = Save:$429.01 (85%)

<= a href=3Dhttp://merryoem.com/?D>

Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: ifVIYcose
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon= Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average= Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 19917 reviews. Write a review.

Adobe Acrobat = Professional V 7.0
Adobe
=

Choose: 

=
List Price:$499.00
Price:= $69.99
You Save:$429.01 (85%)



Avai= lability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: puBu= Zyh
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #4
System requirem= ents  |  Other Versions=
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, = 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5= Based on 175874 reviews. Write a review<= /a>.

----264742268165316-- From cbgaia@apwuteamleadership.com Sun Dec 18 15:39:15 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eo5JL-0005lE-Lh for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:39:15 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA20556 for ; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:38:14 -0500 (EST) Received: from [70.41.50.194] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Eo5LN-0004fA-Hi for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 18 Dec 2005 15:41:25 -0500 Received: from 127.0.0.1 (AVG SMTP 7.1.371 [267.13.13/198]); Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:35:18 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c6002d$025fd100$0100007f@localhost> From: "Gavin Griffin" To: Subject: Buy OEM Software Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:35:16 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=======AVGMAIL-439EF8461FB3=======" X-Spam-Score: 1.1 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 287c806b254c6353fcb09ee0e53bbc5e --=======AVGMAIL-439EF8461FB3======= Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6002D.025FD100" ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6002D.025FD100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 39 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 37 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 45 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6002D.025FD100 Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
Microsoft

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
   
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 34 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $20000
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 38 review! s)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 45 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C6002D.025FD100-- --=======AVGMAIL-439EF8461FB3======= Content-Type: text/plain; x-avg=cert; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Content-Description: "AVG certification" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: 12/12/2005 = --=======AVGMAIL-439EF8461FB3=======-- From bunkob3@bargains2carhire.com Mon Dec 19 04:12:26 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoH4E-0006GT-J1 for dnsext-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:12:26 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11756 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:11:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from [222.120.154.203] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoH6M-0004Le-Ra for dnsext-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:14:42 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c604a6$247ea680$0100007f@localhost> From: "Bryant Collins" To: Subject: 0EM Software Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:12:11 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A6.247EA680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A6.247EA680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 46 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 40 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 50 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A6.247EA680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
!

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT downl! oad!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 34 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 47! reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 40 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A6.247EA680-- From kaserk@bagnocarla89.com Mon Dec 19 04:12:41 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoH4T-0006Ht-Su for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:12:41 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA11776 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:11:39 -0500 (EST) Received: from 59.138.210.220.dy.bbexcite.jp ([220.210.138.59] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoH6b-0004LK-Pi for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 04:14:57 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c604a5$eb463680$0100007f@localhost> From: "Theodore Reed" To: Subject: Need S0ftware? Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:12:05 +0900 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A5.EB463680" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A5.EB463680 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 45 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 48 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 37 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A5.EB463680 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
!

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT downl! oad!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 46 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 37! reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 49 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604A5.EB463680-- From story1212@beachpenguin.com Mon Dec 19 09:45:04 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EoMG7-0006eu-Tm for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:45:04 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA24444 for ; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:43:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from [80.239.74.194] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EoMIL-000803-7g for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 19 Dec 2005 09:47:22 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c604d4$c3ba9280$0100007f@localhost> From: "Liam Barnes" To: Subject: Buy OEM Software Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 15:48:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604D4.C3BA9280" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604D4.C3BA9280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 33 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 42 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 34 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604D4.C3BA9280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
!

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT downl! oad!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 34 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 39! reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 36 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C604D4.C3BA9280-- From AprilHaskins@mbili.com Wed Dec 21 21:55:29 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EpGc5-00012y-7M for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:55:29 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA15945 for ; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:54:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EpGen-0000mD-0o for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:58:19 -0500 Received: from 174.red-83-41-79.dynamicip.rima-tde.net ([83.41.79.174]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EpGbx-000198-Rm for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Dec 2005 21:55:24 -0500 Received: from rqn@localhost by 0ITl.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Wed, 21 Dec 2005 20:28:30 -0700 Message-ID: From: "Kevin Diamond" Reply-To: "Kevin Diamond" To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org Subject: Photoshop & Photoshop Software Starting at $29 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 09:35:30 +0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: AprilHaskins@mbili.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--569126234385561" X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: a4cdc653ecdd96665f2aa1c1af034c9e dMO ----569126234385561 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable x
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me
= =
SEARCH

Microsoft Window= s XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

<= tr vAlign=3Dtop bgColor=3D#333399>

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

=
=  <= /tr>
<= p align=3Dcenter>  ON SALE NOW!

 = ;1 Windows XP Pro SP2
 = ;2 Creative Suite 2
 3 MS Office 2003 Pro
 4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
 <= /td>5 Macromedia Flash 8
 = 6 Dreamweaver 8
 7= Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
 9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
 = ;10 Borland Architect 2005
&= nbsp; See more by this manufacturer
   Microsoft
   Macromedia
  Ado= be
  Customers also b= ought
   these other items...

<= /p>

Choose:<= /b>
=  <= input type=3Dimage alt=3DGo src=3Dhttp://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/s= earch-browse/go-button-software.gif value=3DGo border=3D0 name=3Dsubmit.di= splay-variation width=3D21 height=3D21>
<= /tr>
List Price:$299.00
Price:$49.99
Y= ou Save:$249.01 (80%)


Availability: Available for INSTANT download= !
Coupon Code: CTSZ3oru
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #1
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Co= upon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Ave= rage Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 11642 reviews. Write a review.

Adobe Creative Suite 2 *= Premium*
Ado= be

Choose:<= tr>
 

List Price:<= /b>$1199.00
Price:$149.99
You Save:$1049.01 (95%)


Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code= : qlphUoa1
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #2
Sys= tem requirements  |  Other= Versions
Date Coupon Expires: De= cember 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review= :3D"5 Based on 1576 reviews. Wri= te a review.

Microsoft Office 2003 *Profess= ional*
Micro= soft

Choose:<= tr>
 

You Save:



Availability: Available for INSTANT downl= oad!
Coupon Code: rWb5qP
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date C= oupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Av= erage Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 1538 reviews. Write a review.

List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
$429.01 (85%)

Adobe Acro= bat Professional V 7.0
Adobe

Choose:
<= /td> 

List Price:<= /b>$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save:$429.01 (85%)



= Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: 6Ai89c
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #4=
System r= equirements  |  Other Vers= ions
Date Coupon Expires: Decembe= r 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:= 3D"5 Based on 1784 reviews. Write a = review.

----569126234385561-- From weixin1028@tom.com Thu Dec 22 17:45:46 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EpZBy-0007cd-A7 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:45:46 -0500 Received: from tom.com ([59.41.39.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA14026 for ; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 17:44:34 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200512222244.RAA14026@ietf.org> Received: from WINXP-2005[192.168.11.109] by tom.com with SMTP id 082CEC3A; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:44:53 +0900 From: "wei" Subject: =?GB2312?B?06G2yL34v9rJzMa31bk=?= To: "openpgp-archive" Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: weixin1028@126.com Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 06:45:33 +0800 X-Mailer: FoxMail 3.11 Release [cn] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Ó¡¶È½ø¿ÚÉÌÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á

ÈÈÏߵ绰 £º0086-20-87592093

                2006Ó¡¶È½ø¿ÚÉÌÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á

ÑûÇ뺯

ʱ¼ä:2006Äê3ÔÂ22 --26ÈÕ

µØµã:Ó¡¶ÈеÂÀïGreater Noida ExpresswayÕ¹ÀÀÖÐÐÄ

 

 

Ö÷°ì»ú¹¹:Ó¡¶Èó´Ù»á

Э°ìµ¥Î»: Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾

 

Ò»¡¢Õ¹»á¼ò½é

Ó¡¶ÈÊÇÊÀ½çÉÏÔö³¤ËÙ¶È×î¿ìµÄÏû·ÑÆ·Êг¡Ö®Ò»¡£´ËÕ¹»áÓÉʵÁ¦Ç¿´óµÄÓ¡¶È¹Ù·½»ú¹¹Ó¡¶Èó´Ù»áÖ÷°ì£¬ÎÒ˾×÷ΪЭ°ìµ¥Î»£¬Õ¹»áÉèÔÚÓ¡¶Èó´Ù»áËùÊôÓ¡¶È¹úÄÚ×îÏȽøµÄÕ¹ÀÀÖÐÐÄ¡£Ö÷°ì»ú¹¹½«ÓÚ2006Äê¾Ù°ìÒ»¸öÓëÒÔÍù¶¨Î»²»Í¬µÄÓ¡¶È½ø¿ÚÉÌÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á£¬½«Îª²ÎÕ¹ÉÌÌṩһ¸öÌù½üÓ¡¶È¾Þ´óÏû·ÑÆ·Êг¡µÄ»ú»á£¬ÃæÏòÐèÒª½ø¿Ú¹úÍâÉÌÆ·µÄÓ¡¶ÈÒÔ¼°ÄÏÑÇ¿ÍÉÌ¡£²ÎÕ¹ÉÌÈ«²¿À´×ÔÓ¡¶ÈÒÔÍ⣬չ»á½«»áÎüÒýÀ´×ÔÃÀ¹ú¡¢¼ÓÄôó¡¢Ó¢¹ú¡¢Òâ´óÀû¡¢µÂ¹ú¡¢·¨¹ú¡¢°ÄÖÞ¡¢·ÆÂɱö¡¢Ó¡Äá¡¢ÂíÀ´Î÷ÑÇ¡¢Ì¨Íå¡¢ÄϺ«¡¢Ì©¹ú¡¢Ð¼ÓƵȹú¼Ò×éÍŲÎÕ¹¡£

-------------ÕâÊÇÓ¡¶È×îÖØÒªµÄÏû·ÑÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á£¡

 

Ö÷°ì»ú¹¹¼ò½é

Õ¹ÀÀ»áµÄ×é°ì»ú¹¹ÊÇÓ¡¶ÈÊÖ¹¤ÒÕ³ö¿ÚÍƹãЭ»áÊô϶ÀÁ¢ÔË×÷µÄÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾£¬Ó¡¶ÈÊÖ¹¤ÒÕ³ö¿ÚÍƹãЭ»áÊÇÓ¡¶È¹Ù·½»ú¹¹Ó¡¶Èó´Ù»áÊôÏÂЭ»á£¬³É¹¦Ö÷°ìÁËÿÄêËÄÔÂÒÔ¼°Ê®Ô¾ÙÐеÄÓ¡¶È×î´óµÄÓ¡¶ÈÊÖ¹¤Òµ²úÆ·³ö¿ÚÕ¹ÀÀ»á£¨ÀàËÆÎÒÖÐÐľٰìµÄ³ö¿ÚÉÌÆ·½»Ò׻ᣩ¡£Õâ¸ö»ú¹¹³ï¼¯×ʽð£¬×ÔÐÐÔÚеÂÀ︽½üÎÀÐdzÇÐÞ½¨Ãæ»ý4Íòƽ·½Ã×µÄÓ¡¶È×îÏȽøµÄÕ¹¹ÝINDIA EXPO CENTRE

 

Êг¡ÍƹãÒÔ¼°Ðû´«¼ò½é

²Î¹ÛÉÌÀ´×ÔÈ«Ó¡¶ÈÒÔ¼°ÁÚ¹úµÄ˹ÀïÀ¼¿¨¡¢ÃϼÓÀ­µÈ¹ú£¬×é°ì»ú¹¹»áÔÚÖ÷ÒªÔÓÖ¾ÒÔ¼°±¨Ö½ÉÏ¿¯µÇ¹ã¸æ£»ÓëóÒ×ÍÅÌåЭ»áºÏ×÷ÏòóÒ×Âò¼Ò´«µÝÐÅÏ¢£»×¨ÃŽ¨Á¢ÃæÏòÂò¼ÒµÄÕ¹»áÍøÕ¾ÒÔ¼°¼¾¿¯£»ÃæÏòÓ¡¶ÈÖØÒªµÄóÒ׿¯ÎïÒÔ¼°Éç»áÃûÁ÷·¢·ÅÓйØÐÅÏ¢£»Ä¿±êÃæÏò15ÍòÓ¡¶È±¾ÍÁµÄרҵÂò¼Ò£»Ó¡Öƾ«ÃÀµÄÕ¹»áÖ¸ÄÏ£»ÏòÖØҪóÒ×Âò¼ÒÓʼÄÒÔ¼°·¢·ÅÕ¹»áÖ¸Äϵȡ£

¶þ¡¢Õ¹³ö²úÆ·

Îå½ð¹¤¾ß¡¢½¨Öþ²ÄÁÏ¡¢¼ÒÓÃÆ÷Ã󣬼ҾÓÓÃÆ·, ¼ÒÓõçÆ÷£¬µÆÊΣ¬Ìմɲ£Á§ÖÆÆ·£¬°ì¹«ÒÔ¼°¼ÒÍ¥¼Ò¾ß£¬¼Ò¾ßÊÎÆ·£¬³ø·¿¼°Ô¡ÊÒÓÃÆ·£¬ÖñÖÆÌÙÖƲúÆ·£¬¼Ó¹¤Ê³Æ·£¬¾ÆÀ༰ÒûÁÏ£¬Ê±ÉÐÓÃÆ·£¬Ïä°üÒÔ¼°ÊÖÌá°ü£¬¸öÈË»¤ÀíÒÔ¼°ÃÀÈÝÓÃÆ·£¬Àͱ£ÓÃÆ·£¬ÏãË®ÏãѬ£¬ÊÖ±í¼°Éú»îÓÃÆ·£¬Îľߣ¬Íæ¾ß¼°ÀñÆ·£¬Ð¬µÈ

Èý¡¢²ÎÕ¹ÁªÏµ·½·¨

ÈçÓÐÒâÏò²Î¼ÓµÄÆóÒµ£¬Ç뾡¿ìÌîºÃ¡°²ÎÕ¹ÉêÇë±í¡±´«Õæ»ØÎÒ˾¡£ÎÒ˾ÊÕµ½¹ó˾²ÎÕ¹ÉêÇë±íºó½«¾¡¿ì¸øÓèÈ·ÈÏ̯λ¡£±¨Ãû½Øֹʱ¼äÒÔչλ°²ÅÅÍêΪֹ¡£ÓûÖªÏêÇ飬»¶Ó­²éѯ£¡

ÁªÂç·½·¨:

Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×ÖÐÐļ¯ÍÅ(¹ã½»»áΨһ³Ð°ìµ¥Î»)

Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾

µØÖ·£º¹ãÖÝÊÐÁ÷»¨Â·117ºÅ½»Ò×»á´óÔºÄÚ15ºÅ

ÁªÏµÈË£º ΤÏÈÉú  ÊÖ»ú£º13824400360 

µç»°£º020-87592093  87571596 

´«Õ棺020-87572093  86663416-02

email£ºweixin1028@sina.com     

 

¡¡¡¡¡¡

 

From chevallierlo@amoefamily.com Fri Dec 23 08:59:43 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EpnSP-0007jw-If for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:59:43 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14546 for ; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 08:58:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from [217.12.177.14] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EpnVP-0002Nv-EA for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 23 Dec 2005 09:02:50 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c607f3$05a84900$0100007f@localhost> From: "Robert Howard" To: Subject: Three Steps to the Software You Need at the Prices You Want Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:57:16 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C607F3.05A84900" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C607F3.05A84900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 44 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 41 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 33 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C607F3.05A84900 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES
!

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT downl! oad!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 37 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 47! reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 40 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C607F3.05A84900-- From rogert@paramed.biz Mon Dec 26 05:04:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqpDc-0004mm-QB for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:04:40 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA28251 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:03:31 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EqpHB-0001Ls-SO for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:08:25 -0500 Received: from s0106002018db49c0.vn.shawcable.net ([24.80.208.207] helo=friend) by mx2.foretec.com with esmtp (Exim 4.24) id 1EqpDX-0003Up-Hj for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:04:35 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c60a03$bedd6d80$0100007f@luke-ztcbqd2ky4> From: "Richard" To: Subject: Apply 70% discounts on Windows Software Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 02:04:23 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="multipart/alternative"; boundary="------------ms000806020708070906010303" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 2b3349545af520ba354ccdc9e1a03fc1 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------ms000806020708070906010303 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ms070407010702060901060306" --------------ms070407010702060901060306 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable New Years Discount for OEM Software -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Special #1 : Windows XP Professional with=20 SP2 Full Version, Office 2003 Professional (1 CD Edition) sale price: $59.95 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- Special #2 : Microsoft Windows XP Pro, Microsoft Office XP Pro sale price: $49.95 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- =20 Special #3:=20 Office 2003 Professional (1 CD Edition) sale price: $69.95 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ------- And others... --------------ms070407010702060901060306 Content-Type: text/html; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Special #1=20 :
3D""
sale price: $59.95
Special #2 :
3D""
sale = price: $49.95
 
Special #3:=20
Office 2003 Professional (1 CD=20 Edition)
3D""
sale price: $69.95
 
 
 
--------------ms070407010702060901060306-- --------------ms000806020708070906010303 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="1.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <004701c6078b$50e1c620$0200a8c0@pc> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wBDAAsICAoIBwsKCQoNDAsNERwSEQ8PESIZGhQcKSQrKigk JyctMkA3LTA9MCcnOEw5PUNFSElIKzZPVU5GVEBHSEX/2wBDAQwNDREPESESEiFFLicuRUVFRUVF RUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUVFRUX/wAARCABMAHMDASIA AhEBAxEB/8QAHwAAAQUBAQEBAQEAAAAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtRAAAgEDAwIEAwUFBAQA AAF9AQIDAAQRBRIhMUEGE1FhByJxFDKBkaEII0KxwRVS0fAkM2JyggkKFhcYGRolJicoKSo0NTY3 ODk6Q0RFRkdISUpTVFVWV1hZWmNkZWZnaGlqc3R1dnd4eXqDhIWGh4iJipKTlJWWl5iZmqKjpKWm p6ipqrKztLW2t7i5usLDxMXGx8jJytLT1NXW19jZ2uHi4+Tl5ufo6erx8vP09fb3+Pn6/8QAHwEA AwEBAQEBAQEBAQAAAAAAAAECAwQFBgcICQoL/8QAtREAAgECBAQDBAcFBAQAAQJ3AAECAxEEBSEx BhJBUQdhcRMiMoEIFEKRobHBCSMzUvAVYnLRChYkNOEl8RcYGRomJygpKjU2Nzg5OkNERUZHSElK U1RVVldYWVpjZGVmZ2hpanN0dXZ3eHl6goOEhYaHiImKkpOUlZaXmJmaoqOkpaanqKmqsrO0tba3 uLm6wsPExcbHyMnK0tPU1dbX2Nna4uPk5ebn6Onq8vP09fb3+Pn6/9oADAMBAAIRAxEAPwD1yiiv LfG3jmS7ml0vSJStup2zXCHmQ91U+nv3+nW4Qc3ZCbsdRrvj7TdHcwW4a+uRwUiPyqfdv8M1yFx4 /wDEN85+zeTZp6JHuP5tmuZsNOe4wSSF9zWncaVc6eCbW5kR05Ks6sn45PFdapwjp1Iu2W01zxPL HNcR6q4WEgMXKgZPOAMYqW1+IHiWyRZbyFbiBjtDTQ7Nx68MMDp9awY7+O4tobP7WYpZXbztpKx5 J9/l6D9aseJ5Ss1jYpdJcrawnIiAwrH1AJOcD9feuaU5RxCpSStLXrol/wAEp6wTjfTf/gHo+g/E DS9YkWCfNldHokp+Vj7N0/PFbd/rVtYEoSZJv+eadvqe1ef+BfBS6jbrqeswn7O3Nvbtkb/9tv6D 8fSutjg0NpHWS2ki2s4VnZsPszuIwT02nrg1z4tTT5cPa/n+hvRUNZVb2XYrT+Ib2UnyykS+ijJ/ M1CupXrHJupPwNbFvp+iXT7LcCRgoYhZXOAeh696nXRtLKkrGCAdpPmscHpjr1rx5YPFyd3P8X/k dqxGHSso/gv8zHi1W9iP+vLD0YA1pWuvoxC3SbP9peR+VWhotgP+WJ/77b/Gl/sexzjyef8AfP8A jTp4bHU3eM0/Vt/oZzq0JfZLqOsiB0YMp6EHrS1BBZxWgbyFKg9V3Ej9anBDDIr2Ic3L7+5xO19A oooqhHI/EPX20jRBbW7bbq9zGpHVU/iP6gfj7V5LaRKXXPTvXRfEW+a78XzRZ+S0jSJfqRuP/oWP wrmFcr0r0KMeWHqZSd2bcuoJbWpjj4bHBFaN1r7XyvuGlfMnAkc8MQCMgqQcMZG7/fx2rkiSTzXQ +FfCU3iOUyMdlohwW6bj3/CnPliryBXLL6nbyNHG9lohjGcRNcKUVW+8o+TgdxznPc8CoNMubbWt TtbU2EFhaxyma4ktlwGjA5TAAzubuTwDxwK7xPhvogiCtFubH3sc1it4Zi8NahLHDMZVmVSgYcqo J498n+VedisVClQlJLXodOHpOpVUTs18RaYqhVkYKBgARngVRubnSLveJp7kq+7coUgHcCD0Ge9Y SKWOF5P1qYQEpuJwSeAK+ceY1m02lp5f8E9R4OktLv8Ar5E/9k+F237Y7hWkz5jKXBck5JP45/Mj oSKuNaeHZP8AljIN2d2AwLc5yT1zk9a568vjFqdhpUBH2u9faGPRFHU/pj/9VdLF4MtSoN1cTyy9 2DkV6OHqYutHndkumj/zOKrGhTfKrsr/ANn6C3V7rp03sO3/AOv6Zz1qcW2iDzNrTgSEEgFsDGcA eg5/l6VFdaHNpimWCV7i3H3lflk9we4qNB6VxYrHYvDT5ZpeW/8AmXTo0aiurmtY3GnaerrAZsOc ncGNWo9St5LlERmzJxgqQM1hUMSFLL95PmH1Fc8M4rcy50rdf6uOWGhbQ6uimxSCWFJB0dQw/Giv pzgPCvFuT4v1bP8Az3/oKyK6T4g2Zs/GV2xGEuUSZffjaf1U1zfSvThrFGT3EPAz3r27wLDHH4Q0 5o8fvIgzH37/AK14mqlj/M+ldt4I8aw6JGdN1LcLLcWimAJMZPUEehPPHT+WdeDlHQcXY9Xrk/Ea M+rr2xEvP4mtn/hJdE8nzv7WstmM589c/lnNctN4isfEWtSx6eXIgjAMjDAYZPKjr7Z968PMacpY dtLax3YOajVRJEihT2Rep9f8/wD1qXeSS5HPRRSMfNYRx42jgc0q4Z8D7i/h+lfNHrepyV2rx/Ez TX77odhPpk5/XNeyVwcmn28+o2N/OGEtnLuUr3GDkGu0jv7WQZE6D2Y4P5V9JhMXSqUYxvZxVjx6 9KUZt9GWCAwIIyDxXJqAMhR8oJA+ma2L3VIynl253l+C46CsnGOB0rx83rwquMYO9jfDwcU2+olO 4Eb5HG05pByajvpPJsZWH3iNq/U8D9TXiKLlJRW7OluyudFpDFtItCxyTEvP4UVNZxeRZwxf3EC/ pRX6Czxzj/iXobX+kx6lbpumsclwByYz978sA/nXmEcUTx5LBieSQa+hGUOpVgCpGCD3rx7xn4Ql 0CeS6sYy2mStuO3kwn0P+z6V10KiXusiS6nLOygbUI29/erOnRafLJJ/ad1NbxhRsMMe8sc9D6DF LFqAMaiVZZHUcOJcD24x2pGltXBMltM0h6t52Mn16V1PUgm+w6MSf+J04x0zZNz+tPgu7PRtUtri wuZ54Qu24Z49nBODgfgGFVGksyuEs5FOev2jP9KQyWpY7bVwvoZs/wBKznTVSLhPZlRk4tNHpiMH hV0dZRIMqQcZU9/fNPUBU28jdyQ3pXFaF4ht7Jks7tXitG4SVn3eUfQ8fd/l/LuopBIQ0ZjmjYDb k8Y7EV8NjMLPC1OSe3R9z3KVaNWN0KoRWiEu4R5y23nr6VbaOzMhK/aduD1UelVxIpnx5aqc44B5 H509XyzHYm056ZyK5YyitNH8gldkj/ZxGPJMpcNz5gAwP50xqVW4yVUn37UucrjaBx1rKdpXYloI ozUUEZ1LW4bZRmC1PmzHsW/hX+v5VDcXbmYWdgvm3b8cciP3P+FdJpGlppVmIgd8jHdI56sx616O VYKUprEVFotvPzOXEVdOVF+iiivpjiCmyxJNG0cqh0YYKnoadRQB59r3w0ild59Gk8lm5MLcr+Hp XE3nhvWLB9s9jIccZTmvd6RlDDDAEehFbRrTjoS4pnz59kuun2WfPp5Zz/KrVt4f1S8cLDZuM934 r3X7Jb5z5Eef9wVIqKgwihR7DFW8TIOVHm+h/DViyy6q4YdfLxx+X+NdNN4WW0VW0dxDt/5YyZKH /CujorlqpVlaorlxbjrE4ky3diwW+s5lA/iQb1/xqNNXsVxmRlOCCPLb/Cu6IBGCMiozbwk5MMZP +6K8yWVUG7q6/rzR0LEz6nFf2xA3EMc9wx6BIz/M4qzDp+saoFBQWFuepJzIR/SuuWKNPuIq/QYp 1aUstw9J3td+ZEq85eRR0zSLXSottunzn70h+81XqKK9AxCiiigD/9k= --------------ms000806020708070906010303 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <004801c6078b$50e1c620$0200a8c0@pc> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAANwAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMDBgkAAAVZAAAJAAAADWL/2wCEAAcFBQUFBQcFBQcKBwYHCgwJBwcJDA4LCwwLCw4RDAwMDAwM EQ4QEREREA4VFRcXFRUfHh4eHyMjIyMjIyMjIyMBCAgIDg0OGxISGx4XFBceIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMj IyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjIyMjI//CABEIAFoATQMBEQACEQEDEQH/ xADuAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAAMEBgcCAQgBAAIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAgMFAQYQAAIC AQIFAwIGAwAAAAAAAAECAAMEEQUQEhMUBiExIjIVMFBCIyQlIEEWEQACAQIEAgUHBwoHAAAAAAAB AgMAESExEgRBIhBRcYETYZGx0TJCkqHBUoLSMzQgMHKissIjcxQF8WJDU5MkFRIAAQIEBQMEAwEA AAAAAAAAAQARECExQSBhcQISMFEiUIGRocEyQmITAQACAgAFBAICAwEAAAAAAAEAESExEEFRYXGB kaGx8MHR4SBQ8TD/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQAAANULKPsYb7KLcZRi5/nSVdlmVZ6OXrP0cul3LfV+Iatr SmeLvecmzJjaUh0tVb9C+Y9RmV62UaSPbuapYTHa27HiUdMjCc+vu9eb9LljiGar7Fku8+zZ54c7 nzJvsNaJCu2VDu4+e9FmLmZRs/e03Oi7Ryta/mwmpkiNlgvSzx2G8ec9JlujjjsXZ0FO6KzVVmsQ Bp5QTXkSrY97TvnmvVZqvCvYWtFc4F3PN6QsyIUnXk3RvbJjEPoXUXp9Muk7g9fBV6upNWcc6ujt nO+8cCrxCMjCgsgXpZq0sq+Ag6BwAASAAA4EwLACCIHoEAEhGCWHgdB2Hodh2EkECBAgQIECBAg/ /9oACAECAAEFAf8ASYs7VJ2qztVnarGx1A5EnTU8CPintwTjrHPpP0LkqEos5kYwGazXg3tFBKIu rDKCv1QIX9EbgTpGPxg16eSZkamakypvjUeBEb6ZT7dz6FWYpWNFAAqQ8CIw+EfLNM7pDGsAY5IJ 7rlj7own3myDdrou4XMY4XTtK9bsZmiUaNyCdNZyLNOJAP8AgyEn8j//2gAIAQMAAQUBVdTblzvH neNO6ad0YuQxJsedVhwQ/Kz3EJ9UPovDSIPlAf3XwWazLp5LLSIHIlR9dOC/VGYC2x9EspLr2Zgr IYDQiaRR8pZp1ccfFAOZ1l1fq4iwGKflMj6jUdVIWWMZY3q8QTWBvnO3Fk6Zi/QtWjtjAxcFYMBJ 9vrhwal4DWdZoHhHrrNTNT+ArgD8j//aAAgBAQABBQHf97zdryB5hvTT/r93h813UT/u921XzjdS MPy3dcvJO6b2r/eNzqM8k1O6/qbXl5fjYv7legbp9R1qWYFYGbPIhruvTsssKLW5EapXnQ5WrpCx VmGP508qs6WYjN0q9nsakbbc0Sp67bKxyyqmy2Y1Zr3GeTBTuWz1h5QOSkKvJnY6i510AlDlExX/ ALSeV83d7dto6/bHpvRkKct2NlzAAEtZXZypjWB92nlWM9r4OTnLPIazl5+30oNxydnvtst2ooLc QVmypZtVH9pPIrhjYeJtW3lNy2wZWXg7Hu12Ya0M6NM6NMAUcd7FTY+J6Y62bhbVTuPkOJTiU7hk 0cR7zc6VvmGvLj/ZMvp/ZcknG2enGyeF+SKDTebbJm41uQKLbqV6+QZ1M0z+eZyZpnRyJ0GMFCg/ h//aAAgBAgIGPwFTV1eF081f4Un6Rh7rNOcR0gWQG5cOPELyUqYPaG5u0NpNWU0csB0gQh4+XdOV NMMB0hR1QraS525fSOxgJBu+aoqBU2/a/n4TFmOUPKiohx3cWydO8KBUwTwV9E//2gAIAQMCBj8B TBWVotJWUwIN0BrD2X+e6YUxDWAeiJ2zXInkWUlPANYbXQRamIawC/bx7QlhGsO0NzNyt+U7m8Kq 6unuM4Si/Tp6J//aAAgBAQEGPwGGLbJGyyIWYuGJBBtwIrCOEc30Wy89exAfqt9qsIYG7A/2q/D7 f9f7VX/ptv8Ar+uk2w2+2VpL8zMwUWF8TRTwdm/UyzWB7L1F/UwbdRJMkOlZdTc5tqAA6Noo4xN5 PfHGpL562GOeFG1WGVAeSmHeKX6PGsq2v86P9odG04/wWw+utSWFkaRjq7cbUye7hp76sMhWIuaX C3CvL0bX+dH+0OjbyX0kQvY+W4tTPHzG5I+Sm3LS+I9tSYWFER2JGJY5UVkWzIeYUevhV+uuQXFw Ceq9bdGzE6C/XZrYdGxDgMpGIOXtCrng7U1usUVAsPJSMPeBB7sugjqNNz6bnHFBw/z/ADVtV1Fh 48YF21cesYdG2dRcqhbzMKlbxisTyMwitiL450FQcvCgI7ZccavJblwUCr0TawNNz6ceLheH6DVs eJEyXbXqFr5eyvRFJHP4TCNlsVDKbkZ5GsoW5s7sOA4UqsdMg2scjAEi6Kx1hXsbHGv7VuNsn/Wf cqoBUeLFoXDxTqvdrngMqLHehfIIr/vVY7w/8a+s1+Kc9yeqvv5D8PqrZkNIbTKccu/DofcmFdx4 YH8JsL3YDMX661+EVxvbUbC4BpZo49rPAqoIzLO6FWUm68itcHDM1Dv91u9pMqTrJI0N/wDT1ci6 Qq5tmcaxUV92vmFfdp8IrAAd3SVnGqNhZh2kdRU/LTaBq+ivXy4CoxsmVrxeNuwduD4O6EM8jbVA oSwBjHKbnLrxbawwu5i5UZtvLIZF16XmD3IXwwMEsS3CtruN3NolZVMyAMnMt8VQkWJGYOX5Sxve 1r4Z0UU5YA91LF/6UunlJ/SXqxGBONXf+4zMPo/4ml3InmkZF0qsjXGVixwzOfSAY5Xv/toX85FM vgyRhffcAA9mPQDGRgPYa4v2OuIoo+2l1X93Sw+LUK5dpJ9Zox6GNfhlHbL6lr2YR3sfmFYyRjsQ n96uaf4UUenVWM0h+EegCgdTm3Wzej85/9oACAECAwE/EFDuhOVs+Z3Ph/E7vwnffid6H1sIVXZg vWwF104bHeaPTheczSMujgs8T9cEv8OUNXqailszfkgXENQli585wEhbZDwC98vT3hg2GnOb5Mc2 xejn5hUVal7wHaApOr64btTb6lKyhucvfDLlq3vHS6h95azvLkx9/qD3nAD1mPhlAkIKs9Ma6zYp ZZN7uIbcuVhGBRUsdfH9yjyuVfzwqMC53TLGlfENRFiLm9Fl5nN6BTav06wOIff+prfWWW6/J5it A9X8w22g1ycHYBw2atjnFPViCqCq7l3lxUErmh+QOvaK7Cf8wgWh7QBriJQs/wALSYf6T//aAAgB AwMBPxDcagljSO15eIdD5fzEdny/mYro/PWD8iAqZQDVe+YWwhvrwz+wfmb/ACzJj2vctpHuJbwU eB98KB5/CRImE3pz7dYDdInh/GISsvOaiOq4RUPsOCKqo3HzsGOfr7R+nS6V0l+KL15SjDUyHAN1 KAfxfAYKyz7lx9oQed/2GFBAq9SUEVkqN/X7nMuThYc5fyQqpCb9Wd9IBRgieyNkzLUQwwobr88Q nxud/o4KLVRMGyBDYuWQaObMcky5C4z0IrasRtTmn4zq/P8AqDJHYXzcELdqYU7+ohd84iU6uW6z vM70t/zcjZ6/6T//2gAIAQEDAT8QJpXICKqVTFcGItqqcxxYBv0TFyJm4hgauSBgmrFRBH7RdyAv 6NzUYh1q0o2OzeOcuVpZ8/hKO7wzKxkFSIBQaLq2oq3FDHqKzdZxMxtW4XGGnKKOxlb2vEdhE2fc yxljXliGoCHiUcA8vtwjtCEaArSUDh8TCJ9DoVgdoLbchc4GveKKabPPSYBg1LUqtjzFbBOaCZ4x BY+XeFq1+IwkVjd3t83H5AQMEzVb6wamAvRvl5mE5mzek7MRWaWvEMh5IRdZYwF1W33xAlrDCFO1 gsxwb+QPaEqT1hiJiVoG+kpFKwepkjwuyhWWA9nurf7QAKwWekxerHpyhqIFQvluq/WARAIE6o1c r04EIsHZS3fxCDAUzKsu6txiD0EbXm+qsNg5LhZOXWBXCHRl7WesTRmGFc09TnKojC0i9VKvkSEl pvKsgNNeOCFK+q8wQ9GVD1h2UC8WtdYeeoK9rHhcr7QVIF6gBvcureqDGFcWnq/rGyScw35gtpHi /aaD6wfUi7Z0dHoGOC8alaL+UIawis2BWfcTlMBfayJBziUWZIDBQ0o0FbC3Z1TYLyXFNr5b7IBo vw6T4XAfRBVM8NM1atnJewCJyEGZooLFvesw3JkfajB1pHJcIvtAoshlBnImDiU3u96EIlUj8P8A DRwDyhBrRHDkYyRau7wQWAopiFVCG64Dg3ruzkbja0XFirjxTylazSb3PLORN7XxxSQlSuKaoFDn nOXlGUdaJ9zg4PYOTWIotK6MSvzUmlBYxfWntGCCQWF8v7iHMh6ek8+WT9QZtQ6fUYWYzoMddkKy 0etq/wDT/9k= --------------ms000806020708070906010303 Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="3.jpg" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-ID: <004901c6078b$50e1c620$0200a8c0@pc> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 /9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAgAAZABkAAD/7AARRHVja3kAAQAEAAAAMgAA/+4AIUFkb2JlAGTAAAAAAQMA EAMDBgkAAAQ+AAAIEAAAC4z/2wCEAAgGBgYGBggGBggMCAcIDA4KCAgKDhANDQ4NDRARDA4NDQ4M EQ8SExQTEg8YGBoaGBgjIiIiIycnJycnJycnJycBCQgICQoJCwkJCw4LDQsOEQ4ODg4REw0NDg0N ExgRDw8PDxEYFhcUFBQXFhoaGBgaGiEhICEhJycnJycnJycnJ//CABEIAFoAUAMBIgACEQEDEQH/ xADjAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAGAwQFBwgAAgEBAAMBAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIDBQQBAAYQAAEE AQIGAgIDAAAAAAAAAAIAAQMEBREzECESExQGIhUjFjAyJREAAgECAgUIBgcJAQAAAAAAAQIDABEh EjFBIhMEEFFhcYGxMnKRoUKyIxTB0eFSksI0IDDwYoLSM3MkFRIAAQMBBQgCAwAAAAAAAAAAAQAR AjEQQXESAyAhUYGRoSIy8GHBQhMTAQACAQMDBAIDAQAAAAAAAAEAESExQVHwYXEQgZGhscHR4fEw /9oADAMBAAIRAxEAAAC/IWXrDC49WBBPW262dVF6XTvoIVh6zWerGzqWBKorcrXivgaZxO0Ys7ff V6YBaW9/NUB20q7sS3LQryw6175dIrHN+Yofww20TvgBRJG0vWFnnxvn+/8AMOLWmxGnVKfYAcWB 7VyXhw2MWOycvahUxtlrUuXJ1QQJ2ryrJgOm2PvRne3AGltHIevA6jnjRvZd+aZPQfUJlEubt7na cILD5ZgZ53Af/9oACAECAAEFAZDJpSJmRyfDzJVWmKRTbxNqpA/F2JlUjcGm3h5NotHQ6qXe0TIU SNvystODotOvmvkufD//2gAIAQMAAQUBZm6YYDlRViA/GjU0Ygh/pFNJG3fMz7oKYupw2yfUtV1M tWQbWqdE3IFHsutVqhQdfa5L4rlw/9oACAEBAAEFASLpGPKQyIcjE5yXYok9oGGbKVoV91UX3NNf b1OEu1SLpktWCAxymYOIs3nIo8kLasLJmTDwl28X3O3JUsGzxWKqq4+3kq953dMzphdHP27Sl2sN HIQPhsuM7+r3jOnjShGxRmkdsfKvANXcbNMym2sBq5xWZabhnLIyUrgX4SZcuBtqKm2fXzYZJLlG KPzsMxFTrO9u9gcZPB7D6/Av2/DL9uxTsp9izcs0Ibmcs2lFlpdc17NlhyDFcszfWZlDSfoYbHUr GxnH/wAyeSs6xsdaxZat63PZttT+xG4ZPZtm8lCUq9RWNjMExY6AIWcSaSLwBXgknozLwbWsdK20 isbFwXlpxwsib4vGykBdJMmisdMEFtnUoucVzC5KqEeGypIfXM2TD6plzX6ZfJD6MTqL1mzHE/qt aT+T/9oACAECAgY/AdOApKtkpRrEXq7opZm3NT7WjjZMCpC9CjmDO3Z1o4oAl+1lD0K+BaOJt32a Z4bMKv25q7Y//9oACAEDAgY/AZHhRHKYjK3sWqoCZBEz+peiv6oZb1NEQbyq4Bpiof0bxNwArgqq rqaJ42VC3LU5Klm42avLZ1W9W8vwr9j/2gAIAQEBBj8BLHUL1gjDC4zWHZe9btlaNv5rDs00c4YB RmJw0ems2ViOigWDEE5QVHRfnrwyfh+2vb/DXt/h5H8p7qmd1IXBb89tdQiJkdDmBRzl1XwwvQsM yOLDYvhzXreMihF1mKwoaviXt/T+y/lNcWYWWM575mwFgVJvl6a+YgkzKhOZY9p1Y3uqgAHXz1uo uMVsse8yxscBrFmtY7RNqJXjBkvlaNy5tbo0UvPvDo0eHlh4XKfjBrPq2RfkfynuqSON8rsjMjWG zcjUcDU8kUyqs7B3u5GZhoawXZ7DUrySRBjl3RDHA+1muuN6b5go0rG5kjLLrJGVSTbTQyOtg5ba 02tbUK8a/wAdleMeukWOZUeN1kBOaxtpvltySeU91ZdB3Rx7RUPxiyMhLxBt6zsI2sV3l2BuAbUh mjLQBt28qFCrHnVsq7OIuTbXRnjjeNQ5S0lgcNeBNY1pvyHn5JPKe6trD4R94VIC+VMRLu1OGGN8 owNqypxXE5gQgCM+g6B1ddAPJOxGi8hOvT6qPB8QZhJa7DaIs3bbGmaDOLjawOjTrNEXluNWStkS HVituSXyt3VDxnCsgljcYSnZYFWBU4i9SOVWJJtrdocLjDHqoBbo4yl5FbxYgH01xPD8DOEhVgsY RVY2sL7Vjrq/H8QDJJb4srZzbrW9WHAS25zYduJoTFypcYra9iNWmtmFmUMLuNGnSebkl8jd1R/7 F91qUQRFLAXYsSSdfRW74qY8PCwxmC5gLEHaxFh000zcQL/ckmyRnUpwCN66G4nWXhi+0UQoii+A XOSSBTniJQ7ltkxyQgW0DGRHasqMuRcLFs+Os58L+iuMIVD83GisoJHtY3x5jyS+Ru6owNUi+61X kQyH7uhftp1yLGCjJs6r67YVhN6U+omtmeM9eYfQawMbdTj81qwjv1Mp+mk/538S4hb6xzckvkbu pFdMm0jDpFjiOTKvZWFYcgYRuVbwtlNj1G1LNuZBEjpnkKkAZmAGJ5HRdLKQO0UIvlJGYkf4gZFw voy3r9DN2rb3rV+lt1ug/NWKxJ1v/apramhHVmP0CtvjQPLF9b1HB/6/ECKLCNIwiW6sDS/M8bxc 4UghXkGXZNxgFH7z/9oACAECAwE/EFcMlKy5DHzMOjeaouUXhYwnR/tPH6pW7+I671P3MJpuYBWn XLH/ACP5i3bAS7tWXwkN+dMNkYuFI0PtmPR34gBaJelivhgvtfoiRdHxzED0RZa4rGZt96jojU37 zAqIlE2zUNTFQ7fyj4x519Rvef/aAAgBAwMBPxB7tQQSwEHUNqrDxEVQPAXeMax6T+JrFqu29Khv tEFSiEA66flFqqMlCYW/AjxfuCAUC09kMfU1vATPOq69qlDKh5h/aEUchrhufX/aAQbHmFTU/MIG tecTd7XA27Bb7mUFptFJWJum0cGV34f3OrEPKHG/uFbT/9oACAEBAwE/ECLKMg1oLiqcWEqgaAW9 42HEAOR3bHzGdOHULJ+EPFLOAtO+sBoMgRe6MVBdjyIE26OzBtD5fTqvKE8SsjgrraWZrH3EwBT7 LPaVoUbVKIL9N64BsLvWYUWLYBVC2eJwA0DAXf8Ac4X7lOhErT06RwwPIL3ViL2FfeLQvMuQYIAa WTASmtphFtKWDYd94eQb4QzO4YxHSggFwVVsvM4R8zsIizXBoDYM649Oq8pll9JakZKHnWbWKRAp cp/vLlEndC2zaMRpZ4KqgAE4a7yvVaLWWpguC1+6Dd63iO8UWpagS439MOpygQGwjcLmx5ggaA78 GQrDRuQwuVdaB2rxIVlRCFGhS10UBvfMQBFA5XSC8ARlBFPiVUahjY+mPV5RGtIGRu+CH4AZcfci KznaJuT3nLiS634XNjQGrAlHFmmObuVy4W6aESS6WWybtYrZek1d2aO43Uc9SlKFuKu+/p1LlMJL QBdDkXs3vAdwXskZXdrpSVPISBthAKPKD6eVEyGjk5mF1DRG2XQA4vELlxbAoZLFqZlVzBTYN2OU ChdCjTAqujW/p0jlEaNccB0ChajJNBe00joVfDPAnKuIpmgaVXiIgWHsg8w/D/DA+6F94gBHLIUD EaaJrlWUG87Alp6qJ1rftDFenSOUZDNs0qBQjcJfdrPyiVK9JVJhwVAwBPNE1exB5WK7sD9sBoPj 31L+uDKK+99OkcojXOnIxkB0GDePYLAwOahtWe8rET3eZaouNwWgfwFH2ioCeRoIGrp6VyZm0tAu KSmaipkjTXepmgF0/mouWN574syizWt7AO8/b88ws9uI/YSlDgKE5WkR1vt4OOk/6f/Z --------------ms000806020708070906010303-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 07:45:53 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqrjc-0000Fi-MN for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:45:53 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA12059 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:44:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQCT76t058504; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQCT7qW058498; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQCT6Nb058433 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9E733C1C for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:29:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:29:15 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >> >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>> architects on this? >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >> specs. > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 08:56:37 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqsq3-0001HP-81 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:56:37 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA18766 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:55:26 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQDh6Gp067285; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQDh6AD067284; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org (120.156-228-195.hosting.adatpark.hu [195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQDh5st067276 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1171E2B4799; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:43:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:43:04 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > >> > >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > >>> architects on this? > >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > >> specs. > > > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. > > However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. Yes it does. GPG behaves slightly differently with messages entered from the console, but that makes a lot of sense, too. I don't see any bugs in either the specs and GPG. I have coded up my own OpenPGP implementation based on the spec (http://pgp.epointsystem.org/tool) and it interoperates perfectly with GPG. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 10:54:33 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqugC-0006iu-Ox for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:54:33 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA29358 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:53:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQFaOsZ083121; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQFaOD0083120; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQFaNoR083071 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQFaLS03431 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:22 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQFaHX6031929 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:17 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQFaGux030884 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:16 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQFaGkN030883 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:15 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > >> > >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > >>> architects on this? > >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > >> specs. > > > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. > > However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 11:32:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqvH6-0002ZW-4T for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:32:40 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03386 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:31:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGLBle089956; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGLBpr089955; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGLBYw089949 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37607416B2; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:21:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:20:28 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? I think it is a bug if we decide that the process of cleartext signing is reversable. So, if the process of verification creates a file that is the pre-signed version, then it has to decide whether the final CRLF has to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned output. So, does this output as a line terminated string or as an unterminated string? : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- my signed text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Now, if we decide that the process of signing is not one that is deterministically reversable, it is not an issue. In practice, verification is possibly all we need - and we have that. (I have been unable to convince myself that we need reversibility - I can't think of a case where I would want it... but that's just me!) iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 11:50:54 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqvYk-0004qB-4e for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:50:54 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05107 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:49:44 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGdG3E094022; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGdGhd094021; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGdFpD094013 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQGdES03937; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:14 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQGdAX6032110; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:10 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQGd8sp031027; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQGd8n0031026; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > David Shaw wrote: > > > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? > > I think it is a bug if we decide that the > process of cleartext signing is reversable. Can you please give an example of how the current system is not reversible? As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's a clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Now given a document reading "this is a test", here's a clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here and it IS PART OF THE SIG <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- In what way is this not reversible? > So, if the process of verification creates > a file that is the pre-signed version, then > it has to decide whether the final CRLF has > to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned > output. The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to add one. Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure and not part of the signed text. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 11:59:21 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqvgv-0005i5-HL for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:59:21 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA05754 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:58:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGmp7d096654; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGmpFb096653; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGmo57096647 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQGmnS04000; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:49 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQGmjX6032132; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:45 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQGmhGK031067; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQGmhIQ031066; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226164843.GA31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > So, does this output as a line terminated > string or as an unterminated string? : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > my signed text > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > xxxxx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Sorry, I did not answer this in my earlier mail. This is output as an unterminated string. If you wanted it to be output as a terminated string, you'd have generated this: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > my signed text > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > xxxxx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Note the blank line between "my signed text" and the BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 12:15:14 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqvwI-0007yE-7X for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:15:14 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07273 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:14:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH3oGm098066; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH3opX098065; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH3nBr098059 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9C133C1C; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:03:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:03:59 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" CC: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> In-Reply-To: <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >>>> >>>>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>>>> architects on this? >>>> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >>>> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >>>> specs. >>> I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF >>> (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of >>> the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the >>> presence or lack of line ending on the last line. >> However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. > > Yes it does. GPG behaves slightly differently with messages entered from the > console, but that makes a lot of sense, too. I don't see any bugs in either > the specs and GPG. I have coded up my own OpenPGP implementation based on > the spec (http://pgp.epointsystem.org/tool) and it interoperates perfectly > with GPG. I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of two files, one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 12:15:58 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqvx0-00088u-JJ for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:15:58 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07365 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:14:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH4Ls7098103; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH4LCT098102; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH4KG7098096 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCABB33C1C for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:04:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0229E.9080306@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:04:30 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >>>> >>>>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>>>> architects on this? >>>> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >>>> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >>>> specs. >>> I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF >>> (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of >>> the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the >>> presence or lack of line ending on the last line. >> However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. > > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? Because information about the final character is lost. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 12:16:08 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqvx5-00089C-U1 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:16:08 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA07381 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:14:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH5VI3098340; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH5Vow098339; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH5UNv098332 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E0933C40; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:05:29 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B022E4.5020005@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:05:40 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian G , OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >> >>> Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? >> I think it is a bug if we decide that the >> process of cleartext signing is reversable. > > Can you please give an example of how the current system is not > reversible? > > As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > a clear signature: > > test <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG > Now given a document reading "this is a test", here's a > clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here and it IS PART OF THE SIG <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > In what way is this not reversible? >> So, if the process of verification creates >> a file that is the pre-signed version, then >> it has to decide whether the final CRLF has >> to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned >> output. > The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation > wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to > add one. > Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being > "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure > and not part of the signed text. If that were what happened, I'd be happy. But it isn't. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 12:41:26 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EqwLe-0002e4-CU for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:41:26 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10042 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQHTjgZ001411; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQHTjg9001410; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQHTi7C001404 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2870141676; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:29:43 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:29:01 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > a clear signature: OK, I understand all that. But you've added a new rule: on signing, always add the extra line ending. And that's what we want to clarify - I don't think the spec says that. It simply says that the last newline is not part of the signature. By all means, if that's what we agree on, then we should simply state that in the spec: always add a newline on signing, always take it off on reversing (verifying and stripping sig). I'm happy with that rule - even though I don't think that's what all implementations do. > The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation > wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to > add one. > > Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being > "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure > and not part of the signed text. Right that all makes perfect sense - to me. Can we put that in the spec? Here's what it says: 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. When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a line. Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. Here's what I suggest (changes at ***): 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 *** part of the signed document and SHOULD be added by implementations. *** When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a line. Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. How's that? iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 15:31:51 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Eqz0Z-0000N9-QA for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:31:51 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA00140 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:30:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQKJZW4024133; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQKJZKC024132; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQKJXsL024126 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQKJWS05700; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:32 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQKJSX6000433; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:28 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQKJQZR031374; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQKJQ7M031373; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226201926.GB31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:29:01PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > >As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > >example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > >and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > >a clear signature: > > OK, I understand all that. But you've added > a new rule: on signing, always add the extra > line ending. > > And that's what we want to clarify - I don't > think the spec says that. It simply says that > the last newline is not part of the signature. Ok, now we're cooking: we agree. I don't think the spec says that either. I am just saying that that behavior is consistent with the spec, and (I say) a good thing to do, and (to me) follows naturally from what the spec does say. That said, GPG doesn't do it, and PGP (at least the version I have here) does. Both PGP and GPG are compliant with the spec as written. If you add this extra rule to enforce reversibility, GPG will become noncompliant (fixable, but annoying), and many GPG-created signatures will become noncompliant (a little more worrisome). > Can we put that in the spec? Here's what it > says: > > 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. > > When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the > string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn > on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a > line. > > Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at > the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is > generated. > > Here's what I suggest (changes at ***): > > 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 > *** part of the signed document and SHOULD be added by implementations. *** > > When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the > string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn > on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a > line. > > Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at > the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is > generated. > > How's that? I have no objection to that. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 16:44:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er08h-0000sp-Hg for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:44:19 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA06984 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:43:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQLWF8K032953; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQLWFJo032952; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQLWEgq032944 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E62102B4799; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:32:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:32:13 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226213213.GC24812@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of two files, > one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > test > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct behavior would be reversible. The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that converted from the output of gpg -ts. -- Daniel From HelenHubbard@karmsund.com Mon Dec 26 17:24:24 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er0lT-0005p1-OM for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:24:24 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA11229 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:23:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Er0pA-0007VA-I7 for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:28:13 -0500 Received: from [82.158.134.1] (helo=1.red-82-158-134.user.auna.net) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Er0l4-0000af-TT for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:24:04 -0500 Received: from Zc00@localhost by TeO.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:02:02 -0100 Message-ID: From: "Diego Chaney" Reply-To: "Diego Chaney" To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org Cc: bodyeer@ietf.org, mplsissues@ietf.org Subject: Thousands of academic software titles, 80 % 0ff Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:58:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: HelenHubbard@karmsund.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--236984334415936" X-Spam-Score: 0.2 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fe105289edd72640d9f392da880eefa2 bt3 ----236984334415936 Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable s
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me
SEARCH

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

=
<= td width=3D132> Dreamweaver 8=   Adobe
<= p align=3Dcenter>  ON SALE NOW!

 = ;1 Windows XP Pro SP2
&nb= sp;2 Creative Suite 2
&nb= sp;3 MS Office 2003 Pro
&= nbsp;4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
 5 Macromedia Flash 8
 6
 7 Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
 9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
10 Borland Architect 2005
  See more by this manufacturer
   Microsoft
=    Macromedia
  
 = Customers also bought
   these = other items...

<= b class=3Dsans>Microsoft Windows XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

Choose:
<= a href=3Dhttp://xmastreeoem.com/?P>  =

List Price:$299.00
Price:$49.99
You Save:= $249.01 (80%)



Availa= bility: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: niv2FB= VBa
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #1
<= /span>System requi= rements  |  Other Versio= ns
Date Coupon Expires: December = 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review: Based on 1754 reviews. Write a = review.

Adobe Creative Suite 2 *Premium*
= Adobe

Choose:
&= nbsp;

List Price:$1199.00
Price:$149.99
You Save:$1049= 01 (95%)

=

Availabili= ty: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: tUEhP
= Platform: Wind= ows XP

Sales Rank: #2
System requirements<= /a>  |  Other Versions
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, 20= 05
Average Customer Review:3D"5 B= ased on 18913 reviews. Write a review<= /a>.

Microsoft Office 2003 *Professional*<= br> Microsoft<= img border=3D0 src=3Dhttp://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/promotions/sti= cker/newest_version.gif width=3D82 height=3D14>

Choose:
 

=

You Save:



Availability: Available for INSTANT dow= nload!
Coupon Code: x6qj6
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Da= te Coupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
<= b>Average Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 188488 reviews. Write a review.

<= td class=3Dsmall vAlign=3Dtop noWrap align=3Dright height=3D18 width=3D73>= List Price:
List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
$429.01 (85%)

A= dobe Acrobat Professional V 7.0
Adobe

Choose= :
 

$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save= :$429.01 (85%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Coupon Code: NHGc42E
Platform: Windows XP

= Sales Rank: #4
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupo= n Expires: December 31st, 2005
Averag= e Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 1683 reviews. Write a review.

----236984334415936-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Mon Dec 26 18:16:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er1a3-0003Jv-RF for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:16:40 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA16495 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:15:29 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQN5isl041113; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQN5ijI041112; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQN5hMO041106 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vedaal@hush.com) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1ED5A32EC for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver2.hushmail.com (mailserver2.hushmail.com [65.39.178.21]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver2.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by mailserver2.hushmail.com (8.12.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id jBQN5gZD077843 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vedaal@hush.com) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mailserver2.hushmail.com (8.12.6/8.12.3/Submit) id jBQN5fE1077842 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:37 -0800 To: Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line From: Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:13 -0800 "Daniel A. Nagy" wrote: >On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of >two files, >> one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> test >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) > >Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My >implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct >behavior would >be reversible. >The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that >converted from the >output of gpg -ts. i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, then the signature block begins right after the text if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, then gnupg signs after the empty line they are *not* identical or interchangeable here are two, one with the empty line, and one without: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul iQIVAwUBQ7BzPayhY/YEre4gAQgQGBAAhBa1fSRR/gajgxH77fVAUn4UXQPiB9/b ZTYhwLBaGi6JtyH3JiKCKlLFFqlioGkuXKORu0mq5zOF+jDHNOTSrKAQ5Px0u7XL Kt4xpV5x2EIGXo3aTl7Z+NFDkXBGQ+EombpZhRg4bhH+1jWc5R6M3VzIEhojqZfy 4RxAKxrtswZYCzlat860lrLuMSbpJYEQmN9i127o31aBc8AlX0cV5RTUMxVOh6ql KR2Xv5kQkWw3rATrliluFzUzyFAoIOYPiILWhYuG5/ONBqC+L0ap/HO0fL7+aB03 woZBfJ/AEyJU/bKSV1/yyJCsLO73olv+MG5ugFrR2dRfcFDG7GNhJPxI8a8iV7S1 mXhoJS8EQZqL1qN7fV14IL5VF5weTothV0FO4CnewX+pXXH/SNsGEXh0Y7+P4UG+ Z4Vinlv7V8JJIE5lz1ISULPeLKhFUT7L7YesMHs+WpOm1sWD0KJIh+PZNrPSmVmB Ordu/Eob4ICupSMZkdgQ2AUY8GUUkiUvM2+OexdVo73P07V7DVNixoukEtEA+hVx GmYVSQvpQ5edjXP/DITkQF+JI4FdsWl7McpgmpntSFqj+p99XCXBz3DozvuyuY/x baA7SKK+mUVzvhzyM2Pu03RV0XQv5un+zeulaOEkR9WsHqCHM2GDhIwYZayuq58q GVWZ1eiaFao= =uGPl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul iQIVAwUBQ7BzkqyhY/YEre4gAQjcbg//fj4Y4nfzqHLT57Ud/ru7vPf28vv1x5ph rIV2NUHrrg5rEJ+zt6mj/OsrlOZV8ijcK21hUj/YWPuZOYN6PSme5M5gDYz8qQAe baXnTeh0nuEPdKiH/sYo6jqFw7umRTQk+9vbgGuWnwMTtwoWIXt4zxKkSX1SSJi2 3XKVebMl0LlXPnLTIDyYRHmuJUux+2lEculEBo0gi/SDI3X6KOMWdUrXqVaQBnYe 0QZGGk3MN8NMtUhioOUMLrK1EN5DeGHaJG7Q1I8B9cma50fYEZTc097Rl8KDKPwS 2UfVCzO/Rc00yi8VFrmIglzwvOAd0cYYYfoNUjmJj6vILrpNqj+3KQOt7lG3fOUQ Pq/QRmB6Hoy7nm8wP3KrQPlbz3Ntbhbqnc/x+yhm3p1QndwnJpvSOjXiLcxim7Ij OAv14bXUhy5HKWwlDIZVessW1Hnz3IjDizw82Ct6VMtFpL0YmHmD+KD6tMRw1XIF 973u7ub/vGRNg2yPA1UfpEFnZZeUwgkvK0hs2FB9aSGi4gsg3rZmxgu108KpUMak AOA3zwalf+omfZCJSLJNtRb3iF9bpsidw238npKU7dahOH5MNLykk7+zsk2ONsn7 RYkaf4W1st2DgGcnpNYx+PmN2SPgWMJxTzmPpJATgxdgkONEzU9NDdaL3SvxskYo +5DxZzT/4bU= =+LRk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- addition or subtraction of the empty line, invalidates the signature and this is also true of all commandline pgp versions vedaal Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 From kavac4@backfriend.biz Mon Dec 26 18:58:35 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er2Ec-0007yD-8T for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:58:35 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA20329 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 18:57:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from spr1-burn3-4-1-cust186.bagu.broadband.ntl.com ([82.28.89.186] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Er2Hl-0001qx-7R for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:02:26 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c60aa1$7ffdf500$0100007f@localhost> From: "Jayson Young" To: Subject: Corel Draw Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 23:56:44 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AA1.7FFDF500" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 2.7 (++) X-Scan-Signature: 6ffdee8af20de249c24731d8414917d3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AA1.7FFDF500 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 50 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 43 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 41 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AA1.7FFDF500 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 42 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 31 revie! ws)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 44 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AA1.7FFDF500-- From CarolynVick@andalasmedia.com Tue Dec 27 00:29:38 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er7P0-0007ON-6J; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:29:38 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA22165; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:28:28 -0500 (EST) Received: from host50.foretec.com ([65.246.255.50] helo=mx2.foretec.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Er7Sl-0003Xk-OP; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:33:32 -0500 Received: from 159.red-82-158-238.user.auna.net ([82.158.238.159]) by mx2.foretec.com with smtp (Exim 4.24) id 1Er7Oe-0002Mn-Bo; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:29:18 -0500 Received: from v7C@localhost by ebWC.int (8.11.6/8.11.6); Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:16:49 +0200 Message-ID: From: "Wendy Woodson" Reply-To: "Wendy Woodson" To: openpgp-archive@ietf.org, opes-archive@ietf.org, ops-area@ietf.org, ops-chairs@ietf.org Subject: Windows Products available for Download Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:23:49 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.71.2730.2 X-Sender: CarolynVick@andalasmedia.com Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--Ici8w0MEi8Dyy7r" X-Spam-Score: 2.5 (++) X-Scan-Signature: f60fbf3dbcaca652b6d10036f0630412 fXv ----Ici8w0MEi8Dyy7r Content-Type: text/html; Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable G
Opt-in Email Special Offer   = ;  unsubscribe me

<= td vAlign=3Dbottom> SEARCH
<= /table>

Microsoft Office 2003 *Profe= ssional*
Micr= osoft

T= OP 10 NEW TITLES
<= /tr>= <= td width=3D4> <= td width=3D4> <= td width=3D4> =

 ON SALE NOW!

 1 Windows XP Pro SP2
 = 2 Creative Suite 2
 3 MS Office 2003 Pro
4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
5 Macromedia Flash 8
6 Dreamweaver 8
 7 Norton Sysworks 2005
 8 Adobe GoLive CS2
 9 Adobe Illustrator CS2
 10<= /td> Borland Architect 2005
 <= b> See more by this manufacturer<= /span>
   Microsoft
 <= /td>  Macromedia
   Adobe
  = Customers also bought
 <= /td>  these other items...

M= icrosoft Windows XP Professional *w/SP2*
Microsoft

Choose:
 
<= /td>

<= td class=3Dsmall height=3D18 width=3D105>$49.99<= /tr><= /tr>
List Price:$299.00=
Price:
You Save:$249.01 (80%)



Availability: Available for INS= TANT download!
Coupon Code: rRdSe1PX
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #1
System requirements  |  Other Versions
= Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 117771 reviews. Write a review.

Adobe Creativ= e Suite 2 *Premium*
Adobe

Choose:
<= td noWrap width=3D38> 

List Pr= ice:$1199.00
Pri= ce:$149.99
You Save:= $1049.01 (95%)

=

Availability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupo= n Code: Bcumh4G
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Ra= nk: #2
System requirements  |  Ot= her Versions
Date Coupon Expires:= December 31st, 2005
Average Customer Rev= iew:3D"5 Based on 173859 reviews. W= rite a review.

Choose:
 

You Save:



Availability: Available for INSTANT downlo= ad!
Coupon Code: r88G6
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #3
System requirements  |  Other Versions
Date Coupo= n Expires: December 31st, 2005
Averag= e Customer Review:3D"5 Based on 112125 reviews. Write a review.

=
List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
$429.01 (85%)

Adobe Acroba= t Professional V 7.0
Adobe

Choose:
=
 

List Price:$499.00
Price:$69.99
You Save:$429.01 (85%)



Ava= ilability: Available for INSTANT download!
Coupon Code: 1dW= VduZ
Platform: Windows XP

Sales Rank: #4
System requirem= ents  |  Other Versions=
Date Coupon Expires: December 31st, = 2005
Average Customer Review:3D"5= Based on 1512 reviews. Write a review.

<= /tr> ----Ici8w0MEi8Dyy7r-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 01:17:25 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er89F-0005R3-BW for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:17:25 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA26308 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:16:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR64mB6085995; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR64meN085994; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR64lJJ085988 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA7133C3F; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:04:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0D97E.2010509@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:04:46 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vedaal@hush.com CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit vedaal@hush.com wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:13 -0800 "Daniel A. Nagy" > wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >>> I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of >> two files, >>> one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> test >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) >> Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My >> implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct >> behavior would >> be reversible. >> The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that >> converted from the >> output of gpg -ts. > > i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this > > gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it > > if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, > then the signature block begins right after the text > > if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, > then gnupg signs after the empty line Not the version I'm using, as I've already stated, and in any case, my issue is with clarity in the I-D. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From chatarra@ancillainc.com Tue Dec 27 02:21:09 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Er98u-0005SD-8H for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:21:09 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA03601 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:19:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from cpe000d88a368da-cm023469905548.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com ([72.141.213.10] helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Er9Ce-00073Q-W3 for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:25:03 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c60ae0$397bbb00$0100007f@localhost> From: "Bryson Turner" To: Subject: 0EM Software Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 02:20:56 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AE0.397BBB00" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 093efd19b5f651b2707595638f6c4003 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AE0.397BBB00 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 42 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 36 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 42 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AE0.397BBB00 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 38 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 49 revie! ws)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 38 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60AE0.397BBB00-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 04:30:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErBAG-0004ie-0l for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 04:30:40 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA16592 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 04:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR99kS9002796; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR99kHt002795; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR99jr7002786 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589D0413D3; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:09:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:09:02 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vedaal@hush.com Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit vedaal@hush.com wrote: > i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this > > gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it > > if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, > then the signature block begins right after the text > > if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, > then gnupg signs after the empty line > > they are *not* identical or interchangeable > > here are two, one with the empty line, > and one without: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > test > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) My results do not agree. If there is no terminating newline, GPG adds it (as it must). If there is a terminating line, GPG does not add one. I'm using FreeBSD and 1.4.2. iang galland$ echo "test" > test galland$ cat test test galland$ gpg -ats -u DSS3 test gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "Ian Grigg DSS3 " 1024-bit DSA key, ID DABCCA96, created 2000-03-26 galland$ cat test.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDsQM/4yubUNq8ypYRAvt0AJ9Mz6HniSHDC50tCwbkfhzfHYPbNACeIcgV TNCBA1EqsEB2sC186c1PLwo= =imH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- galland$ cat test test galland$ echo -n "test" > test galland$ cat test galland$ gpg -ats -u DSS3 test gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "Ian Grigg DSS3 " 1024-bit DSA key, ID DABCCA96, created 2000-03-26 File `test.asc' exists. Overwrite? (y/N) y galland$ cat test.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDsQN44yubUNq8ypYRAppqAKDuyDjAe5OilDaA8M4QhCNhyM7b+wCgqO59 81J/3jX2/rahh9p2knSXOO8= =QjIF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 05:08:43 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErBl5-0001R4-Bd for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:08:43 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id FAA21726 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 05:07:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR9us6D007341; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR9usHW007340; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR9urOb007293 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E4AD82B4796; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:56:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:56:52 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227095652.GA9480@epointsystem.org> References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:09:02AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > My results do not agree. If there is no terminating > newline, GPG adds it (as it must). If there is a > terminating line, GPG does not add one. I'm using > FreeBSD and 1.4.2. Same with 1.4.1. and 1.4.2 on Linux and Cygwin -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 12:51:04 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErIyW-00041B-3r for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:51:04 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA20825 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:49:52 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRHY3XW055548; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRHY3x8055547; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from finney.org (226-132.adsl2.netlojix.net [207.71.226.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRHY02n055538 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hal@finney.org) Received: by finney.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B2B1A57F5B; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:38:05 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-Id: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:38:05 -0800 (PST) From: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney") Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats work well. The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the signatures in place. So what are the rules for storing a clearsigned message, with signature stripped away? Would we just want to store the byte stream that was hashed (the portion of it that was from the message and not the signature bytes)? Or would we want to switch to native line terminators when we store? Would we strip or keep trailing whitespace when we store? If we did spec this, it would then by implication tell a sender how to at least approximate data interchange. Problems might arise if line terminators are getting changed. And if we strip trailing whitespace when we store, then it would be impossible to send a document with trailing whitespace and have it be received that way. OTOH the reason we strip trailing whitespace for verification is because some mail systems corrupt that part, so retaining trailing whitespace on store will not guarantee data interchange either. In short, clearsigning is not really appropriate for data interchange because of how many ways the message could be corrupted in transit. But if we do spec it, I would definitely NOT then put in the spec that a sender was FORCED to offer a data interchange option! That is far, far outside anything we should be imposing on an implementation, in a data format spec. Hal Finney From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 13:34:49 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErJer-00024F-NV for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:34:49 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26346 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:33:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPv1c062022; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRIPvFZ062021; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPt1N062013 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86AB416C5; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B18703.5040600@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:07 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hal Finney Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hi Hal, that is fine; in which case I'd just suggest that the spec have a simple one liner in there that suggests that the cleartext format is not required to be reversible / for data interchange: An implementation MAY produce a signature-stripped version of the document, but the format is not intended for data interchange, and there are some minor artifacts such as with the terminating newline. (Or something hopefully shorter.) I admit I couldn't think of a case where we wanted to reverse / interchange. Still, the spec is less than clear on this point, and for programmers who don't follow all the background, a note would be useful. Whichever. I really don't mind which way it goes, but the spec isn't helpful here. Programmers will and do expect the cleartext signing format to be reversable, and it isn't. iang Hal Finney wrote: > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > signatures in place. > > So what are the rules for storing a clearsigned message, with signature > stripped away? Would we just want to store the byte stream that > was hashed (the portion of it that was from the message and not the > signature bytes)? Or would we want to switch to native line terminators > when we store? Would we strip or keep trailing whitespace when we store? > > If we did spec this, it would then by implication tell a sender how > to at least approximate data interchange. Problems might arise if line > terminators are getting changed. And if we strip trailing whitespace when > we store, then it would be impossible to send a document with trailing > whitespace and have it be received that way. OTOH the reason we strip > trailing whitespace for verification is because some mail systems corrupt > that part, so retaining trailing whitespace on store will not guarantee > data interchange either. > > In short, clearsigning is not really appropriate for data interchange > because of how many ways the message could be corrupted in transit. > > But if we do spec it, I would definitely NOT then put in the spec that > a sender was FORCED to offer a data interchange option! That is far, > far outside anything we should be imposing on an implementation, in a > data format spec. > > Hal Finney > > From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 13:37:37 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErJhY-0002f6-W1 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:37:37 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA26747 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPcmx062002; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRIPc3c062001; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPc90061995 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE0833C3F; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:36 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B18722.6090406@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:38 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hal Finney CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Hal Finney wrote: > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. Not for text documents. It seems to me that it is a reasonable expectation that if I clearsign a text document, I should be able to recover the document from the clear signature. Currently that isn't possible with certainty. I do not see the harm in fixing this issue. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 14:46:18 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErKm2-00057N-DE for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:46:18 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA05605 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:45:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRJTqmF067335; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRJTq2K067334; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRJTqsX067326 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRJToS19063 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:50 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRJTkX6005985 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:46 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRJTiiT002887 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRJTi0x002886 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:38:05AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > signatures in place. I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard such that Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line ending on the final line of A. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 16:41:38 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErMZe-0006RP-3N for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:41:38 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA21233 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 16:40:27 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRLRImH081773; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRLRIHk081772; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRLRHqF081766 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 08C872B47C7; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:27:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:27:16 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > signatures in place. > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > such that > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > ending on the final line of A. I think, clearsigned and one-pass signed text documents should work the same way. Data interchange AND human-readability together are worth pursuing. I think, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Canonize ( Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) ) == Canonize ( A ) -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 17:35:35 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErNPr-0007oz-93 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:35:35 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA28199 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:34:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRMPfMN088254; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRMPfmX088253; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRMPerG088247 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRMPcS20924; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:38 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRMPZX6006739; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:35 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRMPWiH003084; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRMPWZZ003083; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 From: David Shaw To: "Daniel A. Nagy" Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 10:27:16PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > > signatures in place. > > > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > > such that > > > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > > ending on the final line of A. > > I think, clearsigned and one-pass signed text documents should work the > same way. Data interchange AND human-readability together are worth > pursuing. I think, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that > > Canonize ( Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) ) == Canonize ( A ) That is a much larger task than the current final-line-ending question. Canonical text for a literal packet type 't' and canonical text for clear signing are not the same. In a 't', line endings are converted to CRLF. In a clear signature, line endings are converted to CRLF and trailing whitespace is removed. Thus, you can convert a clear signature to a signed 0x01 document, but not necessarily from a signed 0x01 to a clearsigned document. I don't think it is reasonable to expect interchange here. If text interchange is desired, then there is a form for that (literal 't'). Clear signed is intended for different situations where trailing whitespace may well not survive transport - clear text canonicalization is a lossy format because of this. The fact that a clear signed document can be converted to a signed 0x01 document is an interesting curiosity, but not much more than that. I have a mild interest in fixing the clearsign end-of-document ambiguity, but I don't want to start changing the canonicalization rules for either 't' or clear text. David p.s. Incidentally, speaking of clear signed data, there are differences in practice in what trailing whitespace is removed. Some programs remove space and tab. Some programs remove only space. Currently, a trailing tab in a clearsigned document is an effective way to break interoperability. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Tue Dec 27 19:10:25 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErOtd-0001pX-Bn for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:10:25 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA13674 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 19:09:13 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRNxFFW095681; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRNxFqS095680; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRNxEbL095674 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRNxDS22014 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:13 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRNxAX6007140 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:10 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRNx6DO003413 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRNx6Ij003412 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:38:05AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > > work well. > > > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > signatures in place. > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > such that > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > ending on the final line of A. Okay, obviously I didn't express that well. I didn't mean to say that we don't need data interchange, but yet we do need data interchange. What I'm trying to say is that we don't need full data interchange, but it might be nice to fix (or even just document?) this particular issue. Given different implementations of end of line at end of document, verifying a clearsigned document across implementations can add or subtract blank lines at the end. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 02:33:52 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErVom-0007YV-6s for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:33:52 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id CAA00829 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 02:32:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS7Kbun054969; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS7KbjE054968; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS7KagG054921 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 Received: from [63.73.97.189] ([63.73.97.189]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:26 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I have some general opinions about this issue. (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't think it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this thing up. Changes to the spec are most likely going to get something that is "right" but causes a decade of interoperability twists that we will "resolve" by declaring old versions to be bogus and the new behavior that no one does to be right. Then a half-dozen years from now, we'll go back to whatever it says now. If you don't believe me, this is *exactly* what happened with the whole blank-trimming thing. Now, then, I am not opposed to having a clarification in the spec. I'll merely allude to my standard comment that OpenPGP Formats is not a How To Write An OpenPGP Application which everyone's heard at least once. And yes, I know there's a big fat fuzzy grey line between clarifications and telling people how to code. (2) I don't see how in the general case clearsigning can be a reversible operation. There are several reasons for this. We have a way to sign data reversibly. That is binary-mode signing. Binary-mode signing is not clearsigning. We also have an higher-level abstraction, text-mode signing. Text-mode signing is not, in the general case, reversible. The reason is that OpenPGP takes this abstract text object and then translates it into the native text format of the receiver's system. If one of us is on a unix box, and one of us is on Windows, then it's very difficult for us to talk about what the heck reversibility is. Ambiguities about text-mode are not new to OpenPGP. They date back at least as far as FTP, and they are a good thing, not a bad thing. Clearsigning is an abstraction built on top of text mode that further abstracts the signature. Text-mode signing is not human-readable. It still involves packets. Clearsigning is human-readable and that's the whole point. I believe that good human interaction is a better virtue than reversibility. Let me give an example. Consider these three text files: "a" (the file containing the letter 'a') "a\n" (the file containing an 'a' and followed by a line-end) "a\n\n" (the same, but with two line-ends) If the first two look the same when clearsigned, this is not a bug, it's a feature. The point of clearsigning is that it be a pleasant experience for the user who wants to read the text, while making it so that a signature can be verified. I expect the third one to have one more blank line than the second one. I don't care how many more it has than the first one. I'm on a unix system and if I 'more' each of the first two, they come out the same on my terminal. If I 'cat' them, they do not, and I believe that this is braindamaged, even if it is "right" and even after you explain to me in detail that it's "right." It may be right, but it's still braindamaged. Whatever GnuPG, PGP, etc. are doing are okay. I see lots of clearsigned messages and nothing ever rubs my aesthetics the wrong way. The purpose of clearsigning is to make it easy to read by humans. Abstract properties like reversibility are secondary; if you want the thing to be reversible, then use a detached signature, for Pete's sake! If there is some application out there that were to compress a zillion newlines into some reasonable number like one, two, or three in the output of a clearsigned message, then more power to them! There's nothing in OpenPGP that says you can't do that. (3) I am firmly against any tweak to the spec, including commentary, that requires any implementation that's got versions past 1.0.1 to have to make a code or behavior change. It's far, far too late for that. Whatever is out there is good enough. If we can make life easier for the likes of Ben and Rachel and other people who are making new systems, we should. But this should not burden any existing system one iota. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 04:25:56 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErXZE-0005Pm-Fj for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:25:56 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA12848 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:24:45 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS92hFU066732; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS92hUu066731; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS92gfU066724 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5673D2B47CC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:02:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:02:41 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051228090241.GA6550@epointsystem.org> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In my opinion, the spec is clear enough about how to verify clearsigned messages and that is all that must be specified. I agree with Jon that it is ultimately up to the applications how they pre-process the text to be signed, as long as the human-readable part does not change (you sign what you see). I don't want to standardize either behavior: in my implementation (ePointPGP) cleartext signatures are reversible and it is actually important. I don't want the standard to declare me wrong. I don't want the standard to declare widely used implementations such as GPG wrong either. I regard it primarily as a back-end, and if someone wants to make reversible clearsigned documents and be sure about it, it's still possible with detached text signatures and perhaps some trivial pre-processing. The end result can be put together as a clearsigned document. The behavior won't change if Werner decides to tweak clearsigning a bit further in a future version of GPG. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 04:32:34 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErXfe-0006nR-Te for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:32:34 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA13562 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 04:31:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97je3067609; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS97juA067597; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97fPA067481 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6639B2B47CC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: private key language Message-ID: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: There's another issue I would like to see cleared up. Right now, I think the private key format is overspecified. This is especially important, since the format in the specification has known weaknesses. I think, it should be ultimately up to each implementation how they store private keys and it does not affect interoperability. It should be made clear that private key packets are intended only as an export-import format and that additional security measures (such as enclosing the whole thing inside an integrity-protected encrypted packet) are recommended, when transfering private keys. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 07:04:44 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Era2u-0001eG-0J for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:04:44 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29123 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:03:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSBiI5B085512; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSBiITw085511; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSBiHuP085503 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AD1416C9; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:44:15 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B27A66.7010200@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:43:34 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit David Shaw wrote: > I don't think it is reasonable to expect interchange here. I'm also of that view, mildly. The purpose of cleartext signing is so that we can pass around signed documents and have them survive as such, with a human-reachable import. In my time using this feature with contracts, I have never come across a case where interchange / reversibility is needed. In fact, to me, it is a nuisance that verification of the signature causes a stripped file to be produced. I'm scratching my head here and I can't quite see it. Can anyone? > p.s. Incidentally, speaking of clear signed data, there are > differences in practice in what trailing whitespace is removed. Some > programs remove space and tab. Some programs remove only space. > Currently, a trailing tab in a clearsigned document is an effective > way to break interoperability. Right. Also there is UTF. That's why we banged the drum a while ago and got this inserted: Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. The characters to be removed are specified precisely. If something is not removing tabs, then that's a bug. A victory against high stress levels in developers. iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 08:24:22 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErbHy-0008Lp-28 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:24:22 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA06300 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 08:23:10 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSD0IEu091025; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSD0Igd091024; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSD0H0a091018 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A56416AC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:00:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:59:35 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Callas wrote: > > I have some general opinions about this issue. > > (1) I don't think the spec should change. > Now, then, I am not opposed to having a clarification in the spec. > (2) I don't see how in the general case clearsigning can be a > reversible operation. > ... Clearsigning is human-readable and that's the > whole point. > (3) I am firmly against any tweak to the spec, including commentary, > that requires any implementation that's got versions past 1.0.1 to have > to make a code or behavior change. It's far, far too late for that. OK. Suggested change from this (1st para, chapter 7): It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that RFC 3156 defines another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) To this (changes are in the parenthesized Note): It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that this binding is not intended to be reversible. RFC 3156 defines another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) Changes are in the parenthesized Note and amount to the insertion of the following CAPS: Note that THIS BINDING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REVERSIBLE. RFC ... iang From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 09:25:00 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErcEe-0003is-53 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:25:00 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA11878 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:23:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSECqJq099000; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSECqHO098999; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSECpx8098961 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSECoS30043 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:50 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSECmX6010259 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:48 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSECjcW004878 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:45 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSECi2F004877 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:44 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 10:07:35AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > There's another issue I would like to see cleared up. Right now, I think the > private key format is overspecified. This is especially important, since the > format in the specification has known weaknesses. > > I think, it should be ultimately up to each implementation how they store > private keys and it does not affect interoperability. It should be made > clear that private key packets are intended only as an export-import format > and that additional security measures (such as enclosing the whole thing > inside an integrity-protected encrypted packet) are recommended, when > transfering private keys. Section 3.6 (Keyrings) says: A keyring is a collection of one or more keys in a file or database. Traditionally, a keyring is simply a sequential list of keys, but may be any suitable database. It is beyond the scope of this standard to discuss the details of keyrings or other databases. Doesn't that pretty much say what needs to be said? It makes it clear the standard isn't getting involved in local storage questions. I don't know about recommending further protection on top of the current secret key transport format. It strikes me as something individual implementations can decide on. The standard doesn't forbid it. What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? David From weixin1028@yahoo.com Wed Dec 28 09:29:13 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErcIj-0004Oy-7T for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:29:13 -0500 Received: from yahoo.com ([59.41.39.148]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA12330 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:27:59 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <200512281427.JAA12330@ietf.org> Received: from WINXP-2005[192.168.11.109] by yahoo.com with SMTP id 390E96D3; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:28:27 +0900 From: "wei" Subject: =?GB2312?B?MDbTobbIvfi/2snMxrfVuQ==?= To: "openpgp-archive" Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Reply-To: weixin1028@126.com Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 22:29:01 +0800 X-Mailer: FoxMail 3.11 Release [cn] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit ¹úÍâÖªÃûÕ¹»á

ÈÈÏߵ绰 £º0086-20-87592093

   

            

    06¹úÍâÖªÃûÕ¹»á³öÕ¹¼Æ»®

 

 

 

 

Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾½éÉÜ

Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾ÊÇÖйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×ÖÐÐÄ(ÖлªÈËÃñ¹²ºÍ¹úÉÌÎñ²¿Ö±Êô»ú¹¹,³Ð°ìÖøÃûµÄÖйúµÚÒ»Õ¹----Öйú³ö¿ÚÉÌÆ·½»Ò×»á)µÄÖ±ÊôÆóÒµ,ÊÇÖйú×î¾ßʵÁ¦ºÍÓ°ÏìÁ¦µÄרҵչÀÀ¹«Ë¾Ö®Ò»¡£ÔÚÈ«Çò¸÷µØÖ÷°ì¡¢³Ð°ì¡¢Ð­°ì¡¢ºÏ×÷×éÖ¯Ò»°Ù¶à¸ö¹úÄÚÍâÖªÃûÕ¹»á,Éæ¼°¸÷¸öÐÐҵרҵչ¼°×ÛºÏÕ¹¡£Óû²Î¼Ó¹úÍâÕ¹,ÇëÀ´µç×Éѯ¡£

 

 

ÈýÔ´óÕ¹:

2006Ó¡¶È½ø¿ÚÉÌÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á

ʱ¼ä:2006Äê3ÔÂ22 --26ÈÕ

µØµã:Ó¡¶ÈеÂÀïGreater Noida ExpresswayÕ¹ÀÀÖÐÐÄ

 

 

Ö÷°ì»ú¹¹: Ó¡¶È¹Ù·½»ú¹¹Ó¡¶Èó´Ù»á

Э°ìµ¥Î»: Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾

   ²ÎÕ¹ÉÌÈ«²¿À´×ÔÓ¡¶ÈÒÔÍ⣬չ»á½«»áÎüÒýÀ´×ÔÃÀ¹ú¡¢¼ÓÄôó¡¢Ó¢¹ú¡¢Òâ´óÀû¡¢µÂ¹ú¡¢·¨¹ú¡¢°ÄÖÞ¡¢·ÆÂɱö¡¢Ó¡Äá¡¢ÂíÀ´Î÷ÑÇ¡¢Ì¨Íå¡¢ÄϺ«¡¢Ì©¹ú¡¢Ð¼ÓƵȹú¼Ò×éÍŲÎÕ¹¡£

-------------ÕâÊÇÓ¡¶È×îÖØÒªµÄÏû·ÑÆ·Õ¹ÀÀ»á

 

ÁªÂç·½·¨:

Öйú¶ÔÍâóÒ×¹ãÖÝÕ¹ÀÀ¹«Ë¾

µØÖ·£º¹ãÖÝÊÐÁ÷»¨Â·117ºÅ½»Ò×»á´óÔºÄÚ15ºÅ

ÁªÏµÈË£º ΤÏÈÉú  ÊÖ»ú£º13824400360 

µç»°£º020-87592093  87571596 

´«Õ棺020-87572093  86663416-13

E-mail£ºweixin1028@sina.com     

 

¡¡¡¡¡¡

 

From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 10:40:04 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErdPI-0000wV-8G for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:40:04 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19400 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:38:53 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFSGRq006038; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSFSGW2006037; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFSFqw005983 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E53E33C1C; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:28:12 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:28:15 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Callas wrote: > (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't think > it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this thing > up. That's a crazy argument. If we're in last call and changes are needed, then what that tells us is we shouldn't be in last call, not that we shouldn't make changes! This argument was used in DNSSEC to squash changes that are now coming back with a vengeance years later. All that invoking "last call so don't touch it" did was introduce about 5 years delay into the process. Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, however, like to remove the ambiguity. Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is defined. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 10:42:16 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErdRQ-0001Ph-CE for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:42:16 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA19565 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:41:05 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFHij5005045; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSFHiJl005044; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFHhAO005020 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A628F2B47CD; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:40 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:12:44AM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? The Klima-Rosa attack: the private material is not bound cryptographically to the public material, thus by changing the public material, the attacker can reconstruct the private material from just one (corrupted) signature, and forge that signature to cover up the attack. Please read the Klima-Rosa paper (poor English, but good content), for more details. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 12:39:41 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErfH3-0005Z9-GX for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:39:41 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15762 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:38:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHBUdK019610; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSHBUX2019609; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHBU2K019603 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSHBTS31476 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:29 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSHBRX6010811 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:27 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSHBNH3005061 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSHBNpo005060 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 04:17:40PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:12:44AM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? > > The Klima-Rosa attack: the private material is not bound cryptographically > to the public material, thus by changing the public material, the attacker > can reconstruct the private material from just one (corrupted) signature, > and forge that signature to cover up the attack. > > Please read the Klima-Rosa paper (poor English, but good content), for more > details. Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats certainly says so: The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 hash prevents this. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 12:49:56 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErfQw-0008HH-NZ for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:49:56 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17374 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:48:43 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHXKI7021216; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSHXKF8021215; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHXISb021205 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3C5F22B47CD; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:33:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:33:18 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 12:11:23PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the > impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) > prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats > certainly says so: > > The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private > key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 > hash prevents this. > > David No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret material is hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not touched; it is the public matereial that is altered. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 13:36:28 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErgA0-00037Q-AF for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:28 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA22936 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSILhTs027012; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSILhlR027011; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSILgg8027005 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSILfS32028 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:41 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSILdX6011106 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:39 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSILZEf005141 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSILZED005140 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228182135.GL31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:33:18PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 12:11:23PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the > > impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) > > prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats > > certainly says so: > > > > The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private > > key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 > > hash prevents this. > > > > David > > No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret material is > hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not touched; it is > the public matereial that is altered. There is certainly some K-R exposure in modifying the secret key, as that is what prompted the SHA-1 protected secret key format in the first place. It's a shame that the hash only covers the secret material and not the copy of the public material in the secret key. David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 16:47:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erj8u-0004yD-Er for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:47:32 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22594 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:46:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLZ287048641; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLZ2tx048640; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLZ2TC048633 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 In-Reply-To: <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> Cc: OpenPGP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:56 -0800 To: Ben Laurie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28 Dec 2005, at 7:28 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > Jon Callas wrote: >> (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't >> think >> it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this >> thing >> up. > > That's a crazy argument. If we're in last call and changes are needed, > then what that tells us is we shouldn't be in last call, not that we > shouldn't make changes! > > But, Ben, that's precisely my argument. When you're in last call, you should either make only small changes or blow the thing up, and go back to a non-last-call state. There are no huge problems in clearsigning. It works. It's been deployed for 15 years now, if we include pre-OpenPGP. > Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, > however, like to remove the ambiguity. > > Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY > omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards > compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is > defined. I'm happy to make that change. In fact, I just did. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 16:48:50 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErjAA-0005Qq-7B for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:48:50 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA22640 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:47:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLaVHd048901; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLaV4q048900; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLaVNG048892 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: OpenPGP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:22 -0800 To: Ian G X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28 Dec 2005, at 4:59 AM, Ian G wrote: > Suggested change from this (1st para, chapter 7): > > It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII > armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable > without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a > cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that RFC 3156 defines > another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that > support > MIME.) > > To this (changes are in the parenthesized Note): > > It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII > armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable > without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a > cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that this binding is not > intended to be reversible. RFC 3156 defines another way to sign > cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) > > Changes are in the parenthesized Note and amount to the insertion > of the following CAPS: > > Note that THIS BINDING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REVERSIBLE. RFC ... I added that in, too. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 16:52:43 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErjDv-0006S6-3D for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:52:43 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA23092 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:51:32 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLUpEY048357; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLUpfv048356; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLUoUB048340 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:48 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:47 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:47 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: private key language Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:44 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28 Dec 2005, at 9:33 AM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret > material is > hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not > touched; it is > the public matereial that is altered. Not as I understand it. The point of the Klima-Rosa attack is that you damage the private key, and persuade someone to sign something with the damaged key. You use that bogus signature to deduce things about the private key. I don't understand how you can have an attack on signatures that involves only damaging the public key. That would mean that anyone can do this, as public keys are well, public. However, it's been years since I've looked at this. As David Shaw said, the tag 254 s2k exists to handle this attack. If I'm missing something or have forgotten something, please explain it to me. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 17:15:47 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErjaE-0004kF-VO for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:15:47 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA25923 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:14:36 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSM2qki051703; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSM2qwu051702; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSM2pqZ051696 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:39 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:38 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6BB02F94-7AA7-4FA5-93DD-4C0168986271@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits, part 2 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:35 -0800 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 5 Dec 2005, at 11:32 AM, David Shaw wrote: > > Here is the second half of a -15 proofreading. As before, these are > just language nits, and should not have any functional significance. > I did note a few items that might be considered functional, but I'm > sending them in a different mail so as to not mix them up. Many > apologies for the late submission of these. > > ***** > > 5.1. Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets says "Note that when an > implementation forms several PKESKs with one session key, forming a > message that can be decrypted by several keys, the implementation MUST > make new PKCS-1 encoding for each key." > > This needs an "a", so as to read "...MUST make a new PKCS-1 > encoding..." > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.3. Notes on Self-Signatures says "If the key is located by key > ID, the algorithm of the primary User ID of the key provides the > default symmetric algorithm." Suggest changing "default" to > "preferred", as preferred is the word used in all the other examples > there. > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.7. Preferred symmetric algorithms says "Algorithm numbers in > section 9." This should be "Algorithm numbers are in section 9." > (i.e. add an "are"). > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.15. Revocation key mentions "1 octet of algid" in the > definition. Suggest "1 octet of PK algorithm ID" or similar as we > never define "algid" in the document. done. > > ***** > > 5.2.3.23. Reason for Revocation has a sentence "Such a revocation > SHOULD include an 0x20 subpacket." Suggest changing this to "Such a > revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 code." or similar. 0x20 in this > case is not a subpacket, and the rest of this section refers to it as > a "code". > done. > ***** > > 5.3. Symmetric-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets has two small > formatting bugs. The lines beginning "Zero or more Encrypted Session > Key packets" and "The decryption result consists" are both indented > an extra space. > done. > ***** > > 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: > > V2 keys are identical to the deprecated V3 keys except for the > version number. An implementation MUST NOT generate them and may > accept or reject them as it sees fit. > > Suggest capitalizing the "may". > done. > ***** > > 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats has the sentence "The reason for this > is that there are some attacks on the private key that can > undetectably modify the secret key". That doesn't really parse well. > Suggest "The reason for this is that there are some attacks that > involve undetectably modifying the secret key". > done. (And apropos of other discussions, this is the fix for the Klima-Rosa attack, among others.) > ***** > > 5.6. Compressed Data Packet (Tag 8) has a note about ZIP and ZLIB, > but not BZip2. It might be good to add: > > BZip2-compressed packets are compressed using the BZip2 algorithm. > done. > ***** > > 6.6. Example of an ASCII Armored Message says "Note that this example > is indented by two spaces." The example is, in fact, indented by > three spaces, but even so should probably be indented by four spaces > like the rest of the document. (Hey, I did say these were nits). Changed to: Note that this example has extra indenting; an actual armored message would have no leading whitespace. > > ***** > > 9.4. Hash Algorithms mentions MD5. Suggest adding a reminder to this > section that MD5 is deprecated. > done. > ***** > > 10.1. Transferable Public Keys has a paragraph beginning "After the > User ID or Attribute packets there may be one or more Subkey packets." > This should be "zero or more" Subkey packets, as is correctly stated a > few paragraphs up from there. > done. > In the same section, there is a paragraph beginning "Each Subkey > packet must be followed by one Signature packet", there is a sentence > "For subkeys that can issue signatures, the subkey binding signature > must contain an embedded signature subpacket with a primary key > binding signature (0x19) issued by the subkey on the top level key". > Suggest capitalizing the MUST. done. Both musts. > > ***** > > In section 10.2. OpenPGP Messages, the paragraph beginning "In > addition, decrypting a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet" has a > blank line in the middle of the paragraph. > Not only did I fix this, but I removed all the places where a period was followed by two spaces so that we don't get more of them. > ***** > > Section 11.1. Key Structures says "A subkey always has a single > signature after it that is issued using the primary key to tie the two > keys together. This binding signature may be in either V3 or V4 > format, but SHOULD be V4." Suggest adding "Subkeys that can issue > signatures must have a V4 binding signature due to the REQUIRED > embedded primary key binding signature." > done, but made it MUST. > ***** > > 12.1. Symmetric Algorithm Preferences says "Since it is found on a > self-signature, it is possible that a keyholder may have different > preferences." Suggest adding the word "multiple" as in "... multiple > different preferences." > > In the same section, in the last paragraph, suggest removing the > parentheses around the Alice example. > done. > ***** > > Section 13. Security Considerations says: > > * SHA384 requires the same work as SHA512. In general, there are > few reasons to use it -- you need a situation where one needs > more security than SHA256, but do not want to have the 512-bit > data length. > > "but do not want" should probably be "but does not want". done > > ***** > > 14. Implementation Nits says: > > * PGP 2.6.X and 5.0 do not trim trailing whitespace from a > "canonical text" signature. They only remove it from cleartext > signatures. These signatures are not OpenPGP compliant -- > OpenPGP requires trimming the whitespace. If you wish to > interoperate with PGP 2.6.X or PGP 5, you may wish to accept > these non-compliant signatures. > > This item is no longer needed as the draft no longer requires trimming > whitespace from canonical text signatures. > removed > ***** > > In section 16. References (Normative), the reference to BZ2 points to > . This is no longer correct, and > should be . done. > > ***** > > In section 17. References (Non-Normative), some of the references are > no longer referred to (BLEICHENBACHER, DONNERHACKE, RFC1983). I'm not > sure if this is a problem or not, as they are not normative anyway. > Either way, I do suggest changing "Non-Normative" to "Informative" as > that is the current recommended wording on rfc-editor.org. > I'm leaving them in. Changed to "Informative". Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 17:26:28 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erjka-00016X-0H for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:26:28 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27139 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:25:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMHxfh054262; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMHx4e054261; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMHwtC054240 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:45 -0800 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 30 Nov 2005, at 8:13 AM, David Shaw wrote: > > These are just some fiddly language nits for -15. Nothing terribly > controversial I hope. > > ****** > > The "IANA Considerations" section in the beginning of the draft > contains this: > > Instead requests to define new tag values (say for new encryption > algorithms for example) should be forwarded to the IESG Security Area > Directors for consideration or forwarding to the appropriate IETF > Working Group for consideration. > > "forwarded... or forwarding" doesn't parse very well. I suggest: > > Instead, requests to define new tag values (say for new encryption > algorithms) should be forwarded to the IESG Security Area Directors > or the appropriate IETF Working Group for consideration. > This was text given to me by the IESG. In general, I don't mess with such things until they tell me to mess with them. > ****** > > Section 3.7.1. String-to-key (S2K) specifier types, refers to S2K > value 2 as "illegal". Everywhere else in the document, such > do-not-use values are referred to as "reserved". > changed > ****** > > Section 3.7.2.1. Secret key encryption says "For compatibility, when > an S2K specifier is used, the special value 255 is stored in the > position where the hash algorithm octet would have been in the old > data structure.". I suggest changing that to read "... the special > value 255 or 254 ..." since 254 is a legal value there, as the table > immediately after that paragraph makes clear. > done > ****** > > Section 3.7.2.1. Secret key encryption, and section 5.3. Symmetric-Key > Encrypted Session Key Packets refer to "passphrase" as "pass phrase". > This is inconsistent with the rest of the document which always uses > "passphrase". > removed all uses of "pass phrase" (two words), making them one word. > ****** > > Section 4.2.2.4. Partial Body Lengths has a paragraph that begins "It > might also be encoded..." That doesn't make sense since there is no > "it" that the sentence refers to. I believe that paragaph belongs in > the following section (4.2.3. Packet Length Examples), as the "it" in > question refers to the example "packet with length 100000" from 4.2.3. > I think you're right. Moved. > ****** > > In section 5.2.1. Signature Types, the signature class 0x18 > description says "This signature is calculated directly on the subkey > itself, not on any User ID or other packets", but in fact 0x18 > signatures are calculated on the primary key plus subkey. Similarly, > the 0x19 description says "This signature is calculated directly on > the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets", but > in reality it is calculated exactly the same way as 0x18 is > (primary+subkey). > > To be sure, 5.2.4 gets this right, and 5.2.1 defers to 5.2.4, but it > would still be nice to not give two different answers for this. > fixed. Here's what they say now: 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the primary key. 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets. > ****** > > 5.2.2. Version 3 Signature Packet Format says "The hash h is PKCS-1 > padded exactly the same way as for the above described RSA > signatures". This doesn't really make sense as there is no > description of RSA signatures above. > All right, it appears to be unnecessary. Removed. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 17:28:40 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erjmi-0001fy-QD for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:28:40 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27275 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:27:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMK0FF054946; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMK0is054945; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMK0qf054936 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051130185250.5A4AF57F5C@finney.org> References: <20051130185250.5A4AF57F5C@finney.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3E51EBC1-DB40-45D0-A762-BD5E5EDDF989@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 comments Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:55 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 30 Nov 2005, at 10:52 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > >>>> I am not sure. But in either case, as far as immediate >>>> modifications to the >>>> standard text are concerned, this "a note..." part should be >>>> removed from >>>> the definition of 0x80, because it means something that 0x80 >>>> definitely >>>> doesn't. Whether or not to add that text someplace else is an >>>> entirely >>>> different question. >> >>> Is this rough consensus? >> >> I concur. > > I agree as well. > > Hal Finney > Okay, this now says: All undefined flags MUST be zero. Defined flags are: First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text. Other octets: none. From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 17:34:15 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erjs7-0004Op-44 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:34:15 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA27809 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 17:33:04 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMPDgX055579; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMPDcI055578; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMPCqC055571 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> References: <20051115181657.8A9FF57F2F@finney.org> <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 comments Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:04 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 15 Nov 2005, at 6:07 PM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:16:57AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > >> example imagine a signature which says, I am not vouching for the >> binding >> between userid and key, but rather I am making a certain assertion >> about >> this userid or key. If we don't understand this notation the correct >> thing is to ignore the signature, and that is in fact what the >> spec says >> should happen. > > Yes, that is my understanding as well. Critical notation means that > it is > essential for the correct interpretation of the signature and without > understanding the notation the signature is meaningless. > >> Critical notations allow implementors to essentially extend signature >> semantics beyond the official set of signature types. We have a >> protected >> namespace for proprietary extensions, and we have the ability for >> legacy >> applications silently to ignore unrecognized extensions. It's a good >> feature. > > I agree. > In cleaning things up, I think I should say that despite discussions, I don't see anything in what Daniel, Ian, or Hal have said that I disagree with, and think we're in violent agreement. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 18:43:23 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erkx1-00027M-2P for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:43:23 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06179 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:42:11 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNNrUR061079; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNNrRt061078; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNNpsn061070 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4CA6A2B47CD; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:23:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:23:50 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, I think, I should explain the Klima-Rosa attack, because the original paper is a bit difficult to understand. It is slightly different for RSA and DSA keys, but the main idea is the same. In both cases, the private material is an exponent and the public material has the modulus of an exponentiation, the result of which is part of the signature. The base of the exponentiation is different for RSA and DSA (and ElGamal), but it is known in all cases. Let's stick to the ElGamal example, for the sake of clarity (and because it isn't covered elsewhere). The signature contains g^k mod p (k is a random number), so if the attacker corrupts p and g such that discrete logarithms mod p are easy to solve, he can work back k and from there, the secret x. The point is that the secret material is revealed by using it in a modified context. Now, this attack can be thwarted by a lot of sanity checks on the private key (e.g. checking that the private part indeed corresponds to the public part), before outputting the signature, as is done by GPG, but it might be expensive for less powerful computers/smartcards. If the public-private binding were provided by the hash-based MDC, it would be a lot cheaper. Stuff to read: http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076 (original paper) http://www.orlingrabbe.com/DSAflaw_OpenPGP.htm (explaination and exploit code) -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 18:50:44 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Erl48-0004HF-OK for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:50:44 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA06802 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:49:33 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNaK5f061909; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNaKn7061908; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNaKWO061901 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:11 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 28 Dec 2005, at 3:23 PM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > Hi, > > I think, I should explain the Klima-Rosa attack, because the > original paper > is a bit difficult to understand. > > It is slightly different for RSA and DSA keys, but the main idea is > the > same. In both cases, the private material is an exponent and the > public > material has the modulus of an exponentiation, the result of which > is part > of the signature. The base of the exponentiation is different for > RSA and > DSA (and ElGamal), but it is known in all cases. > > Let's stick to the ElGamal example, for the sake of clarity (and > because it > isn't covered elsewhere). The signature contains g^k mod p (k is a > random > number), so if the attacker corrupts p and g such that discrete > logarithms > mod p are easy to solve, he can work back k and from there, the > secret x. > The point is that the secret material is revealed by using it in a > modified > context. > > Now, this attack can be thwarted by a lot of sanity checks on the > private > key (e.g. checking that the private part indeed corresponds to the > public > part), before outputting the signature, as is done by GPG, but it > might be > expensive for less powerful computers/smartcards. If the public- > private > binding were provided by the hash-based MDC, it would be a lot > cheaper. > > Stuff to read: > http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076 (original paper) > http://www.orlingrabbe.com/DSAflaw_OpenPGP.htm (explaination and > exploit code) Okay, so there isn't anything new here. We fixed this years ago. Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 19:01:02 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErlE6-0007Hc-5P for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:01:02 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA08111 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:59:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNkOJc063536; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNkOBH063535; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from finney.org (226-132.adsl2.netlojix.net [207.71.226.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNkNkY063529 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hal@finney.org) Received: by finney.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6FD5757F5B; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) To: dshaw@jabberwocky.com, jon@callas.org Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Message-Id: <20051228234728.6FD5757F5B@finney.org> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) From: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney") Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon writes: > fixed. Here's what they say now: > > 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that > indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated > directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or > other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have > an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which > contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the > primary key. > > 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating > that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature > is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any > User ID or other packets. This last sentence is not right. Perhaps surprisingly, Primary Key Binding Signatures (which are issued by subkeys) hash both the primary and subkey packet bodies. Hal From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 19:41:29 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErlrF-0002lH-QM for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:41:29 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA11757 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:40:16 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT0P3gP068356; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT0P3dp068355; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT0P264068347 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBT0P0S03060 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:25:00 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBT0P0X6012581 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:25:00 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBT0Os53005788 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBT0Osf1005787 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Message-ID: <20051229002454.GA5579@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 02:17:45PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > >In section 5.2.1. Signature Types, the signature class 0x18 > >description says "This signature is calculated directly on the subkey > >itself, not on any User ID or other packets", but in fact 0x18 > >signatures are calculated on the primary key plus subkey. Similarly, > >the 0x19 description says "This signature is calculated directly on > >the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets", but > >in reality it is calculated exactly the same way as 0x18 is > >(primary+subkey). > > > >To be sure, 5.2.4 gets this right, and 5.2.1 defers to 5.2.4, but it > >would still be nice to not give two different answers for this. > > > > fixed. Here's what they say now: > > 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that > indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated > directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or > other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have > an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which > contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the > primary key. > > 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating > that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature > is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any > User ID or other packets. Minor problem here: 0x19 hashes both the primary key and subkey. It is actually the same as 0x18. David From 2836.gc5567@advisersinc.com Wed Dec 28 20:35:50 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ermhq-0001oF-Cn for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:35:50 -0500 Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA17370 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:34:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from [211.93.92.163] (helo=localhost) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with smtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Ermly-0006Y5-Pl for openpgp-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:40:08 -0500 Message-ID: <000001c60c42$4d3f3280$0100007f@localhost> From: "John Walker" <2836.gc5567@advisersinc.com> To: Subject: 0EM Software Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:35:29 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60C42.4D3F3280" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Spam-Score: 1.0 (+) X-Scan-Signature: 6ffdee8af20de249c24731d8414917d3 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60C42.4D3F3280 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable.TOP.10.NEW.TITLES.ON.SALE.NOW!.1.Office.Pro.2003.2.Adobe.Photoshop.9.0.3.Windows.XP.Pro.4.Adobe.Acrobat.7.Pro.5.Flash.MX.2004.6.Corel.Draw.12.7.Norton.Antivirus.2005.8.Windows.2003.Se ListPrice: $550.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #1 Average Customer Review: (based on 31 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Microsoft Windows XP Professional by Microsoft ListPrice: $200.00 OurPrice: $49.95 YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #2 Average Customer Review: (based on 50 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0 by Adobe ListPrice: $599.00 OurPrice: $69.95 YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%) Availability: Available for INSTANT download! Sales Rank: #3 Average Customer Review: (based on 50 reviews) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60C42.4D3F3280 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Software

TOP 10 NEW TITLES

 ON SALE NOW!

  1 Office Pro 2003
  2 Adobe Photoshop 9.0
  3 Windows XP Pro
  4 Adobe Acrobat 7 Pro
  5 Flash MX 2004
  6 Corel Draw 12
  7 Norton Antivirus 2005
  8 Windows 2003 Server
  9 Alias Maya 6 Wavefrt
  10 Adobe Illustrator 11
  See more by this manufacturer
    Microsoft
    Symantec
    Adobe

Microsoft Office Professional Edition 2003
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: $550.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $480.05 ( 87%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #1
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 32 reviews)

Microsoft Windows XP Professional
   by Microsoft

ListPrice: ! $200.00
OurPrice: $49.95
YouSave: $150.05 ( 75%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #2
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 37 reviews)

Adobe Photoshop CS2 V 9.0
   by Adobe

ListPrice: $599.00
OurPrice: $69.95
YouSave: $529.05 ( 88%)



Availability: Available for INSTANT download!


Sales Rank: #3
Average Customer Review: 3D"5
(based on 33 reviews)

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C60C42.4D3F3280-- From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Wed Dec 28 23:14:53 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ErpBl-0001TO-4z for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:14:53 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA01676 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:13:42 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT41NIF089623; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT41Nlh089622; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT41MI5089612 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBT41KS04674 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBT41KX6013225 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBT41Dgv006074 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBT41DIw006073 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051229040113.GA6042@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 01:34:56PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > >Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, > >however, like to remove the ambiguity. > > > >Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY > >omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards > >compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is > >defined. > > I'm happy to make that change. In fact, I just did. Forgive me, please, but I understood the rule before. With this change, I don't think I understand what is expected any longer. Is this added newline hashed into the signature? Wouldn't "always" adding a newline cause text (with no line ending) to become: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- and text\n (with a line ending) to become: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If someone could post an example of what is now expected for "text" and "text\n", I'd appreciate it. GPG never adds a final newline to the hashed data, even if the original document doesn't have one. If there is a final newline in the document, it is removed and not hashed into the signature. Does this change to the draft make GPG noncompliant? David From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 29 03:28:32 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Ert9D-00020D-T7 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:28:32 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA19984 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:27:21 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT8F3YE015220; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT8F3JJ015219; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT8F2ei015210 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 469EB2B47CC; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:15:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:15:01 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:36:11PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > Okay, so there isn't anything new here. We fixed this years ago. No, we haven't. The public material can still be altered, unless some expensive checks (like verifying the signature after it has been made) are in place. Actually, the MDC at the end of the private material that does not include the public part does exactly nothing against this attack. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Thu Dec 29 18:25:47 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Es79X-0008Pa-Ai for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:25:47 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA01099 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 18:24:35 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBTNDR1d007394; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBTNDR2Q007393; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBTNDQRO007387 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:19 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Okay, I talked to Hal, and got things explained. The issue is that when you do a DSA signature, the signature not only uses the private component, but the public ones as well, and those aren't hashed. So the question is whether we do something, and if so, what. Here are some things I thought of: * When we do a V5 key, it makes sense to hash (or even better, hmac) the entire public components as well as the private. * This makes the problem better, but it doesn't solve it. For example, it would be reasonable for someone to get public components from the public key packets and only the private ones from the secret packets. In this case, integrity checks on the secret packets aren't sufficient. * There must therefore be some security consideration note that calls out that implementations need to do consistency checks on keys, particularly when signing. I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? Jon From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Dec 30 03:55:12 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EsG2a-0002JA-Dh for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:55:12 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA20357 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:53:58 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBU8YJjM084802; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBU8YJsK084801; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org (120.156-228-195.hosting.adatpark.hu [195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBU8YIk5084795 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C468F2B47AF; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:34:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:34:16 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051230083416.GA26717@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 03:13:19PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? I agree that putting in the security consideration now is a reasonable thing to do. As for the packet format, I would like to phase out encrypted private key packets as such. Unencrypted private key packets encapsulated into MDC-protected encrypted packets with an S2K in front of them does the job and leaves us with one less format to maintain. I think, V5 should not have an encrypted version at all. -- Daniel From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Dec 30 08:04:19 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EsJvf-0007St-66 for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:04:19 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA14737 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 08:03:06 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUCgmnE025773; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBUCgmu7025772; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUCgkax025757 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547BF33C45; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:42:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B52B4A.60602@algroup.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:42:50 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Callas wrote: > * There must therefore be some security consideration note that calls > out that implementations need to do consistency checks on keys, > particularly when signing. > > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? Yes. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff From owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Fri Dec 30 10:21:03 2005 Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EsM3z-0002NB-6j for openpgp-archive@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:21:03 -0500 Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA00868 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 10:19:49 -0500 (EST) Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUF7uBW044242; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBUF7uAg044241; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUF7tcJ044234 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A805DFFC; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:07:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B54D22.3000200@systemics.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:07:14 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jon Callas wrote: > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? I agree. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUF7uBW044242; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBUF7uAg044241; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUF7tcJ044234 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 07:07:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01A805DFFC; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:07:53 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B54D22.3000200@systemics.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 15:07:14 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon Callas wrote: > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? I agree. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUCgmnE025773; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBUCgmu7025772; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBUCgkax025757 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 04:42:47 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547BF33C45; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:42:45 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B52B4A.60602@algroup.co.uk> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:42:50 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon Callas wrote: > * There must therefore be some security consideration note that calls > out that implementations need to do consistency checks on keys, > particularly when signing. > > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? Yes. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBU8YJjM084802; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBU8YJsK084801; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org (120.156-228-195.hosting.adatpark.hu [195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBU8YIk5084795 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:34:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id C468F2B47AF; Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:34:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 09:34:16 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051230083416.GA26717@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 03:13:19PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the > security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? I agree that putting in the security consideration now is a reasonable thing to do. As for the packet format, I would like to phase out encrypted private key packets as such. Unencrypted private key packets encapsulated into MDC-protected encrypted packets with an S2K in front of them does the job and leaves us with one less format to maintain. I think, V5 should not have an encrypted version at all. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBTNDR1d007394; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBTNDR2Q007393; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBTNDQRO007387 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:23 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6BE8F3A1-DE94-4591-B451-BE8A98033F52@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:13:19 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Okay, I talked to Hal, and got things explained. The issue is that when you do a DSA signature, the signature not only uses the private component, but the public ones as well, and those aren't hashed. So the question is whether we do something, and if so, what. Here are some things I thought of: * When we do a V5 key, it makes sense to hash (or even better, hmac) the entire public components as well as the private. * This makes the problem better, but it doesn't solve it. For example, it would be reasonable for someone to get public components from the public key packets and only the private ones from the secret packets. In this case, integrity checks on the secret packets aren't sufficient. * There must therefore be some security consideration note that calls out that implementations need to do consistency checks on keys, particularly when signing. I propose that we improve the packets when we do V5, but put in the security consideration now. Does that sound reasonable? Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT8F3YE015220; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT8F3JJ015219; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT8F2ei015210 for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:15:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 469EB2B47CC; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:15:01 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 09:15:01 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051229081501.GA11471@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 03:36:11PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > Okay, so there isn't anything new here. We fixed this years ago. No, we haven't. The public material can still be altered, unless some expensive checks (like verifying the signature after it has been made) are in place. Actually, the MDC at the end of the private material that does not include the public part does exactly nothing against this attack. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT41NIF089623; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT41Nlh089622; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT41MI5089612 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:01:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBT41KS04674 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBT41KX6013225 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBT41Dgv006074 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBT41DIw006073 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:01:13 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051229040113.GA6042@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 01:34:56PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > >Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, > >however, like to remove the ambiguity. > > > >Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY > >omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards > >compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is > >defined. > > I'm happy to make that change. In fact, I just did. Forgive me, please, but I understood the rule before. With this change, I don't think I understand what is expected any longer. Is this added newline hashed into the signature? Wouldn't "always" adding a newline cause text (with no line ending) to become: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- and text\n (with a line ending) to become: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- If someone could post an example of what is now expected for "text" and "text\n", I'd appreciate it. GPG never adds a final newline to the hashed data, even if the original document doesn't have one. If there is a final newline in the document, it is removed and not hashed into the signature. Does this change to the draft make GPG noncompliant? David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT0P3gP068356; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBT0P3dp068355; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBT0P264068347 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:25:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBT0P0S03060 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:25:00 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBT0P0X6012581 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:25:00 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBT0Os53005788 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBT0Osf1005787 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 19:24:54 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Message-ID: <20051229002454.GA5579@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 02:17:45PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote: > >In section 5.2.1. Signature Types, the signature class 0x18 > >description says "This signature is calculated directly on the subkey > >itself, not on any User ID or other packets", but in fact 0x18 > >signatures are calculated on the primary key plus subkey. Similarly, > >the 0x19 description says "This signature is calculated directly on > >the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets", but > >in reality it is calculated exactly the same way as 0x18 is > >(primary+subkey). > > > >To be sure, 5.2.4 gets this right, and 5.2.1 defers to 5.2.4, but it > >would still be nice to not give two different answers for this. > > > > fixed. Here's what they say now: > > 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that > indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated > directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or > other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have > an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which > contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the > primary key. > > 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating > that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature > is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any > User ID or other packets. Minor problem here: 0x19 hashes both the primary key and subkey. It is actually the same as 0x18. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNkOJc063536; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNkOBH063535; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from finney.org (226-132.adsl2.netlojix.net [207.71.226.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNkNkY063529 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:46:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hal@finney.org) Received: by finney.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6FD5757F5B; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) To: dshaw@jabberwocky.com, jon@callas.org Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Message-Id: <20051228234728.6FD5757F5B@finney.org> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:47:28 -0800 (PST) From: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney") Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon writes: > fixed. Here's what they say now: > > 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that > indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated > directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or > other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have > an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which > contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the > primary key. > > 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature > This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating > that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature > is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any > User ID or other packets. This last sentence is not right. Perhaps surprisingly, Primary Key Binding Signatures (which are issued by subkeys) hash both the primary and subkey packet bodies. Hal Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNaK5f061909; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNaKn7061908; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNaKWO061901 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:14 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6A02A0EA-2D8B-4328-A169-36F282A21481@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:36:11 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 28 Dec 2005, at 3:23 PM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > Hi, > > I think, I should explain the Klima-Rosa attack, because the > original paper > is a bit difficult to understand. > > It is slightly different for RSA and DSA keys, but the main idea is > the > same. In both cases, the private material is an exponent and the > public > material has the modulus of an exponentiation, the result of which > is part > of the signature. The base of the exponentiation is different for > RSA and > DSA (and ElGamal), but it is known in all cases. > > Let's stick to the ElGamal example, for the sake of clarity (and > because it > isn't covered elsewhere). The signature contains g^k mod p (k is a > random > number), so if the attacker corrupts p and g such that discrete > logarithms > mod p are easy to solve, he can work back k and from there, the > secret x. > The point is that the secret material is revealed by using it in a > modified > context. > > Now, this attack can be thwarted by a lot of sanity checks on the > private > key (e.g. checking that the private part indeed corresponds to the > public > part), before outputting the signature, as is done by GPG, but it > might be > expensive for less powerful computers/smartcards. If the public- > private > binding were provided by the hash-based MDC, it would be a lot > cheaper. > > Stuff to read: > http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076 (original paper) > http://www.orlingrabbe.com/DSAflaw_OpenPGP.htm (explaination and > exploit code) Okay, so there isn't anything new here. We fixed this years ago. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNNrUR061079; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSNNrRt061078; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSNNpsn061070 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:23:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 4CA6A2B47CD; Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:23:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 00:23:50 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Short intro on the K-R attack [Re: private key language] Message-ID: <20051228232350.GA407@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, I think, I should explain the Klima-Rosa attack, because the original paper is a bit difficult to understand. It is slightly different for RSA and DSA keys, but the main idea is the same. In both cases, the private material is an exponent and the public material has the modulus of an exponentiation, the result of which is part of the signature. The base of the exponentiation is different for RSA and DSA (and ElGamal), but it is known in all cases. Let's stick to the ElGamal example, for the sake of clarity (and because it isn't covered elsewhere). The signature contains g^k mod p (k is a random number), so if the attacker corrupts p and g such that discrete logarithms mod p are easy to solve, he can work back k and from there, the secret x. The point is that the secret material is revealed by using it in a modified context. Now, this attack can be thwarted by a lot of sanity checks on the private key (e.g. checking that the private part indeed corresponds to the public part), before outputting the signature, as is done by GPG, but it might be expensive for less powerful computers/smartcards. If the public-private binding were provided by the hash-based MDC, it would be a lot cheaper. Stuff to read: http://eprint.iacr.org/2002/076 (original paper) http://www.orlingrabbe.com/DSAflaw_OpenPGP.htm (explaination and exploit code) -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMPDgX055579; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMPDcI055578; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMPCqC055571 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:09 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> References: <20051115181657.8A9FF57F2F@finney.org> <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 comments Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:25:04 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 15 Nov 2005, at 6:07 PM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:16:57AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > >> example imagine a signature which says, I am not vouching for the >> binding >> between userid and key, but rather I am making a certain assertion >> about >> this userid or key. If we don't understand this notation the correct >> thing is to ignore the signature, and that is in fact what the >> spec says >> should happen. > > Yes, that is my understanding as well. Critical notation means that > it is > essential for the correct interpretation of the signature and without > understanding the notation the signature is meaningless. > >> Critical notations allow implementors to essentially extend signature >> semantics beyond the official set of signature types. We have a >> protected >> namespace for proprietary extensions, and we have the ability for >> legacy >> applications silently to ignore unrecognized extensions. It's a good >> feature. > > I agree. > In cleaning things up, I think I should say that despite discussions, I don't see anything in what Daniel, Ian, or Hal have said that I disagree with, and think we're in violent agreement. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMK0FF054946; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMK0is054945; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMK0qf054936 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:20:00 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:58 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051130185250.5A4AF57F5C@finney.org> References: <20051130185250.5A4AF57F5C@finney.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3E51EBC1-DB40-45D0-A762-BD5E5EDDF989@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 comments Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:19:55 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 30 Nov 2005, at 10:52 AM, Hal Finney wrote: > >>>> I am not sure. But in either case, as far as immediate >>>> modifications to the >>>> standard text are concerned, this "a note..." part should be >>>> removed from >>>> the definition of 0x80, because it means something that 0x80 >>>> definitely >>>> doesn't. Whether or not to add that text someplace else is an >>>> entirely >>>> different question. >> >>> Is this rough consensus? >> >> I concur. > > I agree as well. > > Hal Finney > Okay, this now says: All undefined flags MUST be zero. Defined flags are: First octet: 0x80 = human-readable. This note value is text. Other octets: none. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMHxfh054262; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSMHx4e054261; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:59 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSMHwtC054240 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:58 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:50 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051130161356.GB23127@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:17:45 -0800 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 30 Nov 2005, at 8:13 AM, David Shaw wrote: > > These are just some fiddly language nits for -15. Nothing terribly > controversial I hope. > > ****** > > The "IANA Considerations" section in the beginning of the draft > contains this: > > Instead requests to define new tag values (say for new encryption > algorithms for example) should be forwarded to the IESG Security Area > Directors for consideration or forwarding to the appropriate IETF > Working Group for consideration. > > "forwarded... or forwarding" doesn't parse very well. I suggest: > > Instead, requests to define new tag values (say for new encryption > algorithms) should be forwarded to the IESG Security Area Directors > or the appropriate IETF Working Group for consideration. > This was text given to me by the IESG. In general, I don't mess with such things until they tell me to mess with them. > ****** > > Section 3.7.1. String-to-key (S2K) specifier types, refers to S2K > value 2 as "illegal". Everywhere else in the document, such > do-not-use values are referred to as "reserved". > changed > ****** > > Section 3.7.2.1. Secret key encryption says "For compatibility, when > an S2K specifier is used, the special value 255 is stored in the > position where the hash algorithm octet would have been in the old > data structure.". I suggest changing that to read "... the special > value 255 or 254 ..." since 254 is a legal value there, as the table > immediately after that paragraph makes clear. > done > ****** > > Section 3.7.2.1. Secret key encryption, and section 5.3. Symmetric-Key > Encrypted Session Key Packets refer to "passphrase" as "pass phrase". > This is inconsistent with the rest of the document which always uses > "passphrase". > removed all uses of "pass phrase" (two words), making them one word. > ****** > > Section 4.2.2.4. Partial Body Lengths has a paragraph that begins "It > might also be encoded..." That doesn't make sense since there is no > "it" that the sentence refers to. I believe that paragaph belongs in > the following section (4.2.3. Packet Length Examples), as the "it" in > question refers to the example "packet with length 100000" from 4.2.3. > I think you're right. Moved. > ****** > > In section 5.2.1. Signature Types, the signature class 0x18 > description says "This signature is calculated directly on the subkey > itself, not on any User ID or other packets", but in fact 0x18 > signatures are calculated on the primary key plus subkey. Similarly, > the 0x19 description says "This signature is calculated directly on > the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets", but > in reality it is calculated exactly the same way as 0x18 is > (primary+subkey). > > To be sure, 5.2.4 gets this right, and 5.2.1 defers to 5.2.4, but it > would still be nice to not give two different answers for this. > fixed. Here's what they say now: 0x18: Subkey Binding Signature This signature is a statement by the top-level signing key that indicates that it owns the subkey. This signature is calculated directly on the primary key and subkey, not on any User ID or other packets. A signature that binds a signing subkey MUST have an embedded signature subpacket in this binding signature which contains a 0x19 signature made by the signing subkey on the primary key. 0x19 Primary Key Binding Signature This signature is a statement by a signing subkey, indicating that it is owned by the primary key and subkey. This signature is calculated directly on the primary key itself, and not on any User ID or other packets. > ****** > > 5.2.2. Version 3 Signature Packet Format says "The hash h is PKCS-1 > padded exactly the same way as for the above described RSA > signatures". This doesn't really make sense as there is no > description of RSA signatures above. > All right, it appears to be unnecessary. Removed. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSM2qki051703; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSM2qwu051702; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSM2pqZ051696 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:39 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:38 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:38 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <6BB02F94-7AA7-4FA5-93DD-4C0168986271@callas.org> Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Some -15 text nits, part 2 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 14:02:35 -0800 To: David Shaw X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 5 Dec 2005, at 11:32 AM, David Shaw wrote: > > Here is the second half of a -15 proofreading. As before, these are > just language nits, and should not have any functional significance. > I did note a few items that might be considered functional, but I'm > sending them in a different mail so as to not mix them up. Many > apologies for the late submission of these. > > ***** > > 5.1. Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets says "Note that when an > implementation forms several PKESKs with one session key, forming a > message that can be decrypted by several keys, the implementation MUST > make new PKCS-1 encoding for each key." > > This needs an "a", so as to read "...MUST make a new PKCS-1 > encoding..." > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.3. Notes on Self-Signatures says "If the key is located by key > ID, the algorithm of the primary User ID of the key provides the > default symmetric algorithm." Suggest changing "default" to > "preferred", as preferred is the word used in all the other examples > there. > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.7. Preferred symmetric algorithms says "Algorithm numbers in > section 9." This should be "Algorithm numbers are in section 9." > (i.e. add an "are"). > done. > ***** > > 5.2.3.15. Revocation key mentions "1 octet of algid" in the > definition. Suggest "1 octet of PK algorithm ID" or similar as we > never define "algid" in the document. done. > > ***** > > 5.2.3.23. Reason for Revocation has a sentence "Such a revocation > SHOULD include an 0x20 subpacket." Suggest changing this to "Such a > revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 code." or similar. 0x20 in this > case is not a subpacket, and the rest of this section refers to it as > a "code". > done. > ***** > > 5.3. Symmetric-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets has two small > formatting bugs. The lines beginning "Zero or more Encrypted Session > Key packets" and "The decryption result consists" are both indented > an extra space. > done. > ***** > > 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: > > V2 keys are identical to the deprecated V3 keys except for the > version number. An implementation MUST NOT generate them and may > accept or reject them as it sees fit. > > Suggest capitalizing the "may". > done. > ***** > > 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats has the sentence "The reason for this > is that there are some attacks on the private key that can > undetectably modify the secret key". That doesn't really parse well. > Suggest "The reason for this is that there are some attacks that > involve undetectably modifying the secret key". > done. (And apropos of other discussions, this is the fix for the Klima-Rosa attack, among others.) > ***** > > 5.6. Compressed Data Packet (Tag 8) has a note about ZIP and ZLIB, > but not BZip2. It might be good to add: > > BZip2-compressed packets are compressed using the BZip2 algorithm. > done. > ***** > > 6.6. Example of an ASCII Armored Message says "Note that this example > is indented by two spaces." The example is, in fact, indented by > three spaces, but even so should probably be indented by four spaces > like the rest of the document. (Hey, I did say these were nits). Changed to: Note that this example has extra indenting; an actual armored message would have no leading whitespace. > > ***** > > 9.4. Hash Algorithms mentions MD5. Suggest adding a reminder to this > section that MD5 is deprecated. > done. > ***** > > 10.1. Transferable Public Keys has a paragraph beginning "After the > User ID or Attribute packets there may be one or more Subkey packets." > This should be "zero or more" Subkey packets, as is correctly stated a > few paragraphs up from there. > done. > In the same section, there is a paragraph beginning "Each Subkey > packet must be followed by one Signature packet", there is a sentence > "For subkeys that can issue signatures, the subkey binding signature > must contain an embedded signature subpacket with a primary key > binding signature (0x19) issued by the subkey on the top level key". > Suggest capitalizing the MUST. done. Both musts. > > ***** > > In section 10.2. OpenPGP Messages, the paragraph beginning "In > addition, decrypting a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet" has a > blank line in the middle of the paragraph. > Not only did I fix this, but I removed all the places where a period was followed by two spaces so that we don't get more of them. > ***** > > Section 11.1. Key Structures says "A subkey always has a single > signature after it that is issued using the primary key to tie the two > keys together. This binding signature may be in either V3 or V4 > format, but SHOULD be V4." Suggest adding "Subkeys that can issue > signatures must have a V4 binding signature due to the REQUIRED > embedded primary key binding signature." > done, but made it MUST. > ***** > > 12.1. Symmetric Algorithm Preferences says "Since it is found on a > self-signature, it is possible that a keyholder may have different > preferences." Suggest adding the word "multiple" as in "... multiple > different preferences." > > In the same section, in the last paragraph, suggest removing the > parentheses around the Alice example. > done. > ***** > > Section 13. Security Considerations says: > > * SHA384 requires the same work as SHA512. In general, there are > few reasons to use it -- you need a situation where one needs > more security than SHA256, but do not want to have the 512-bit > data length. > > "but do not want" should probably be "but does not want". done > > ***** > > 14. Implementation Nits says: > > * PGP 2.6.X and 5.0 do not trim trailing whitespace from a > "canonical text" signature. They only remove it from cleartext > signatures. These signatures are not OpenPGP compliant -- > OpenPGP requires trimming the whitespace. If you wish to > interoperate with PGP 2.6.X or PGP 5, you may wish to accept > these non-compliant signatures. > > This item is no longer needed as the draft no longer requires trimming > whitespace from canonical text signatures. > removed > ***** > > In section 16. References (Normative), the reference to BZ2 points to > . This is no longer correct, and > should be . done. > > ***** > > In section 17. References (Non-Normative), some of the references are > no longer referred to (BLEICHENBACHER, DONNERHACKE, RFC1983). I'm not > sure if this is a problem or not, as they are not normative anyway. > Either way, I do suggest changing "Non-Normative" to "Informative" as > that is the current recommended wording on rfc-editor.org. > I'm leaving them in. Changed to "Informative". Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLaVHd048901; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLaV4q048900; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLaVNG048892 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:26 -0800 In-Reply-To: <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: OpenPGP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:36:22 -0800 To: Ian G X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 28 Dec 2005, at 4:59 AM, Ian G wrote: > Suggested change from this (1st para, chapter 7): > > It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII > armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable > without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a > cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that RFC 3156 defines > another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that > support > MIME.) > > To this (changes are in the parenthesized Note): > > It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII > armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable > without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a > cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that this binding is not > intended to be reversible. RFC 3156 defines another way to sign > cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) > > Changes are in the parenthesized Note and amount to the insertion > of the following CAPS: > > Note that THIS BINDING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REVERSIBLE. RFC ... I added that in, too. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLZ287048641; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLZ2tx048640; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLZ2TC048633 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:35:02 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:59 -0800 In-Reply-To: <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <7EFCCC1E-10E9-41F3-8F75-120DC5792CAB@callas.org> Cc: OpenPGP Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:34:56 -0800 To: Ben Laurie X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 28 Dec 2005, at 7:28 AM, Ben Laurie wrote: > Jon Callas wrote: >> (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't >> think >> it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this >> thing >> up. > > That's a crazy argument. If we're in last call and changes are needed, > then what that tells us is we shouldn't be in last call, not that we > shouldn't make changes! > > But, Ben, that's precisely my argument. When you're in last call, you should either make only small changes or blow the thing up, and go back to a non-last-call state. There are no huge problems in clearsigning. It works. It's been deployed for 15 years now, if we include pre-OpenPGP. > Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, > however, like to remove the ambiguity. > > Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY > omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards > compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is > defined. I'm happy to make that change. In fact, I just did. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLUpEY048357; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSLUpfv048356; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSLUoUB048340 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:48 -0800 Received: from [63.251.255.205] ([63.251.255.205]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:47 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:47 -0800 In-Reply-To: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: private key language Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:30:44 -0800 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On 28 Dec 2005, at 9:33 AM, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret > material is > hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not > touched; it is > the public matereial that is altered. Not as I understand it. The point of the Klima-Rosa attack is that you damage the private key, and persuade someone to sign something with the damaged key. You use that bogus signature to deduce things about the private key. I don't understand how you can have an attack on signatures that involves only damaging the public key. That would mean that anyone can do this, as public keys are well, public. However, it's been years since I've looked at this. As David Shaw said, the tag 254 s2k exists to handle this attack. If I'm missing something or have forgotten something, please explain it to me. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSILhTs027012; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSILhlR027011; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSILgg8027005 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:21:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSILfS32028 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:41 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSILdX6011106 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:39 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSILZEf005141 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSILZED005140 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:21:35 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228182135.GL31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 06:33:18PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 12:11:23PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the > > impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) > > prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats > > certainly says so: > > > > The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private > > key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 > > hash prevents this. > > > > David > > No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret material is > hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not touched; it is > the public matereial that is altered. There is certainly some K-R exposure in modifying the secret key, as that is what prompted the SHA-1 protected secret key format in the first place. It's a shame that the hash only covers the secret material and not the copy of the public material in the secret key. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHXKI7021216; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSHXKF8021215; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHXISb021205 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:33:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3C5F22B47CD; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:33:18 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 18:33:18 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228173318.GA11152@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 12:11:23PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the > impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) > prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats > certainly says so: > > The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private > key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 > hash prevents this. > > David No, this is, unfortunately, not the case, as only the secret material is hashed. In the Klima-Rosa attack, the secret material is not touched; it is the public matereial that is altered. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHBUdK019610; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSHBUX2019609; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSHBU2K019603 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:11:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSHBTS31476 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:29 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSHBRX6010811 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:27 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSHBNH3005061 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSHBNpo005060 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:11:23 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228171123.GK31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 04:17:40PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:12:44AM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? > > The Klima-Rosa attack: the private material is not bound cryptographically > to the public material, thus by changing the public material, the attacker > can reconstruct the private material from just one (corrupted) signature, > and forge that signature to cover up the attack. > > Please read the Klima-Rosa paper (poor English, but good content), for more > details. Sure, I know about the Klima-Rosa attack, but I was under the impression that the SHA-1 protected secret key format (S2K 254) prevents the attack. The text in 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats certainly says so: The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private key that can undetectably modify the secret key. Using a SHA-1 hash prevents this. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFSGRq006038; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSFSGW2006037; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFSFqw005983 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:28:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E53E33C1C; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:28:12 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B2AF0F.2060600@algroup.co.uk> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:28:15 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas CC: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon Callas wrote: > (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't think > it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this thing > up. That's a crazy argument. If we're in last call and changes are needed, then what that tells us is we shouldn't be in last call, not that we shouldn't make changes! This argument was used in DNSSEC to squash changes that are now coming back with a vengeance years later. All that invoking "last call so don't touch it" did was introduce about 5 years delay into the process. Which is not to say I care passionately about reversability. I would, however, like to remove the ambiguity. Can we say implementations SHOULD always add a newline, but they MAY omit it if the plaintext ends with a newline (for backwards compatibility)? That way nothing is broken, but future behaviour is defined. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFHij5005045; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSFHiJl005044; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSFHhAO005020 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 07:17:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id A628F2B47CD; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 16:17:40 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228151740.GA1531@epointsystem.org> References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 09:12:44AM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? The Klima-Rosa attack: the private material is not bound cryptographically to the public material, thus by changing the public material, the attacker can reconstruct the private material from just one (corrupted) signature, and forge that signature to cover up the attack. Please read the Klima-Rosa paper (poor English, but good content), for more details. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSECqJq099000; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSECqHO098999; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSECpx8098961 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 06:12:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBSECoS30043 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:50 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBSECmX6010259 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:48 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBSECjcW004878 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:45 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBSECi2F004877 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:44 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 09:12:44 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: private key language Message-ID: <20051228141244.GI31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Wed, Dec 28, 2005 at 10:07:35AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > There's another issue I would like to see cleared up. Right now, I think the > private key format is overspecified. This is especially important, since the > format in the specification has known weaknesses. > > I think, it should be ultimately up to each implementation how they store > private keys and it does not affect interoperability. It should be made > clear that private key packets are intended only as an export-import format > and that additional security measures (such as enclosing the whole thing > inside an integrity-protected encrypted packet) are recommended, when > transfering private keys. Section 3.6 (Keyrings) says: A keyring is a collection of one or more keys in a file or database. Traditionally, a keyring is simply a sequential list of keys, but may be any suitable database. It is beyond the scope of this standard to discuss the details of keyrings or other databases. Doesn't that pretty much say what needs to be said? It makes it clear the standard isn't getting involved in local storage questions. I don't know about recommending further protection on top of the current secret key transport format. It strikes me as something individual implementations can decide on. The standard doesn't forbid it. What weakness in the private key format are you referring to? David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSD0IEu091025; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSD0Igd091024; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSD0H0a091018 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 05:00:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49A56416AC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 13:00:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B28C37.8070201@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 12:59:35 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Callas Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Jon Callas wrote: > > I have some general opinions about this issue. > > (1) I don't think the spec should change. > Now, then, I am not opposed to having a clarification in the spec. > (2) I don't see how in the general case clearsigning can be a > reversible operation. > ... Clearsigning is human-readable and that's the > whole point. > (3) I am firmly against any tweak to the spec, including commentary, > that requires any implementation that's got versions past 1.0.1 to have > to make a code or behavior change. It's far, far too late for that. OK. Suggested change from this (1st para, chapter 7): It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that RFC 3156 defines another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) To this (changes are in the parenthesized Note): It is desirable to sign a textual octet stream without ASCII armoring the stream itself, so the signed text is still readable without special software. In order to bind a signature to such a cleartext, this framework is used. (Note that this binding is not intended to be reversible. RFC 3156 defines another way to sign cleartext messages for environments that support MIME.) Changes are in the parenthesized Note and amount to the insertion of the following CAPS: Note that THIS BINDING IS NOT INTENDED TO BE REVERSIBLE. RFC ... iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSBiI5B085512; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBSBiITw085511; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBSBiHuP085503 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 03:44:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 75AD1416C9; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:44:15 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B27A66.7010200@systemics.com> Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 11:43:34 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > I don't think it is reasonable to expect interchange here. I'm also of that view, mildly. The purpose of cleartext signing is so that we can pass around signed documents and have them survive as such, with a human-reachable import. In my time using this feature with contracts, I have never come across a case where interchange / reversibility is needed. In fact, to me, it is a nuisance that verification of the signature causes a stripped file to be produced. I'm scratching my head here and I can't quite see it. Can anyone? > p.s. Incidentally, speaking of clear signed data, there are > differences in practice in what trailing whitespace is removed. Some > programs remove space and tab. Some programs remove only space. > Currently, a trailing tab in a clearsigned document is an effective > way to break interoperability. Right. Also there is UTF. That's why we banged the drum a while ago and got this inserted: Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. The characters to be removed are specified precisely. If something is not removing tabs, then that's a bug. A victory against high stress levels in developers. iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97je3067609; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS97juA067597; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS97fPA067481 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:07:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6639B2B47CC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:07:35 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: private key language Message-ID: <20051228090735.GB6550@epointsystem.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: There's another issue I would like to see cleared up. Right now, I think the private key format is overspecified. This is especially important, since the format in the specification has known weaknesses. I think, it should be ultimately up to each implementation how they store private keys and it does not affect interoperability. It should be made clear that private key packets are intended only as an export-import format and that additional security measures (such as enclosing the whole thing inside an integrity-protected encrypted packet) are recommended, when transfering private keys. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS92hFU066732; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS92hUu066731; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS92gfU066724 for ; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 01:02:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 5673D2B47CC; Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:02:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2005 10:02:41 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051228090241.GA6550@epointsystem.org> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: In my opinion, the spec is clear enough about how to verify clearsigned messages and that is all that must be specified. I agree with Jon that it is ultimately up to the applications how they pre-process the text to be signed, as long as the human-readable part does not change (you sign what you see). I don't want to standardize either behavior: in my implementation (ePointPGP) cleartext signatures are reversible and it is actually important. I don't want the standard to declare me wrong. I don't want the standard to declare widely used implementations such as GPG wrong either. I regard it primarily as a back-end, and if someone wants to make reversible clearsigned documents and be sure about it, it's still possible with detached text signatures and perhaps some trivial pre-processing. The end result can be put together as a clearsigned document. The behavior won't change if Werner decides to tweak clearsigning a bit further in a future version of GPG. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS7Kbun054969; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBS7KbjE054968; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from merrymeet.com (merrymeet.com [63.73.97.162]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBS7KagG054921 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jon@callas.org) Received: from keys.merrymeet.com (63.73.97.166) by merrymeet.com with ESMTP (Eudora Internet Mail Server X 3.2.7) for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 Received: from [63.73.97.189] ([63.73.97.189]) by keys.merrymeet.com (PGP Universal service); Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by keys.merrymeet.com on Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:28 -0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) In-Reply-To: <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <3842ED21-DFF7-40C6-AFA4-6A3ECFF785DA@callas.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jon Callas Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 23:20:26 -0800 To: OpenPGP X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I have some general opinions about this issue. (1) I don't think the spec should change. The reason that I don't think it should change is that we're in last call. We want to tidy this thing up. Changes to the spec are most likely going to get something that is "right" but causes a decade of interoperability twists that we will "resolve" by declaring old versions to be bogus and the new behavior that no one does to be right. Then a half-dozen years from now, we'll go back to whatever it says now. If you don't believe me, this is *exactly* what happened with the whole blank-trimming thing. Now, then, I am not opposed to having a clarification in the spec. I'll merely allude to my standard comment that OpenPGP Formats is not a How To Write An OpenPGP Application which everyone's heard at least once. And yes, I know there's a big fat fuzzy grey line between clarifications and telling people how to code. (2) I don't see how in the general case clearsigning can be a reversible operation. There are several reasons for this. We have a way to sign data reversibly. That is binary-mode signing. Binary-mode signing is not clearsigning. We also have an higher-level abstraction, text-mode signing. Text-mode signing is not, in the general case, reversible. The reason is that OpenPGP takes this abstract text object and then translates it into the native text format of the receiver's system. If one of us is on a unix box, and one of us is on Windows, then it's very difficult for us to talk about what the heck reversibility is. Ambiguities about text-mode are not new to OpenPGP. They date back at least as far as FTP, and they are a good thing, not a bad thing. Clearsigning is an abstraction built on top of text mode that further abstracts the signature. Text-mode signing is not human-readable. It still involves packets. Clearsigning is human-readable and that's the whole point. I believe that good human interaction is a better virtue than reversibility. Let me give an example. Consider these three text files: "a" (the file containing the letter 'a') "a\n" (the file containing an 'a' and followed by a line-end) "a\n\n" (the same, but with two line-ends) If the first two look the same when clearsigned, this is not a bug, it's a feature. The point of clearsigning is that it be a pleasant experience for the user who wants to read the text, while making it so that a signature can be verified. I expect the third one to have one more blank line than the second one. I don't care how many more it has than the first one. I'm on a unix system and if I 'more' each of the first two, they come out the same on my terminal. If I 'cat' them, they do not, and I believe that this is braindamaged, even if it is "right" and even after you explain to me in detail that it's "right." It may be right, but it's still braindamaged. Whatever GnuPG, PGP, etc. are doing are okay. I see lots of clearsigned messages and nothing ever rubs my aesthetics the wrong way. The purpose of clearsigning is to make it easy to read by humans. Abstract properties like reversibility are secondary; if you want the thing to be reversible, then use a detached signature, for Pete's sake! If there is some application out there that were to compress a zillion newlines into some reasonable number like one, two, or three in the output of a clearsigned message, then more power to them! There's nothing in OpenPGP that says you can't do that. (3) I am firmly against any tweak to the spec, including commentary, that requires any implementation that's got versions past 1.0.1 to have to make a code or behavior change. It's far, far too late for that. Whatever is out there is good enough. If we can make life easier for the likes of Ben and Rachel and other people who are making new systems, we should. But this should not burden any existing system one iota. Jon Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRNxFFW095681; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRNxFqS095680; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRNxEbL095674 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 15:59:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRNxDS22014 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:13 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRNxAX6007140 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:10 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRNx6DO003413 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRNx6Ij003412 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:59:06 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227235906.GH31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:38:05AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > > > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > > work well. > > > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > signatures in place. > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > such that > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > ending on the final line of A. Okay, obviously I didn't express that well. I didn't mean to say that we don't need data interchange, but yet we do need data interchange. What I'm trying to say is that we don't need full data interchange, but it might be nice to fix (or even just document?) this particular issue. Given different implementations of end of line at end of document, verifying a clearsigned document across implementations can add or subtract blank lines at the end. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRMPfMN088254; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRMPfmX088253; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:41 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRMPerG088247 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:25:40 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRMPcS20924; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:38 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRMPZX6006739; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:35 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRMPWiH003084; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRMPWZZ003083; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 17:25:32 -0500 From: David Shaw To: "Daniel A. Nagy" Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227222532.GG31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: "Daniel A. Nagy" , ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 10:27:16PM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > > signatures in place. > > > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > > such that > > > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > > ending on the final line of A. > > I think, clearsigned and one-pass signed text documents should work the > same way. Data interchange AND human-readability together are worth > pursuing. I think, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that > > Canonize ( Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) ) == Canonize ( A ) That is a much larger task than the current final-line-ending question. Canonical text for a literal packet type 't' and canonical text for clear signing are not the same. In a 't', line endings are converted to CRLF. In a clear signature, line endings are converted to CRLF and trailing whitespace is removed. Thus, you can convert a clear signature to a signed 0x01 document, but not necessarily from a signed 0x01 to a clearsigned document. I don't think it is reasonable to expect interchange here. If text interchange is desired, then there is a form for that (literal 't'). Clear signed is intended for different situations where trailing whitespace may well not survive transport - clear text canonicalization is a lossy format because of this. The fact that a clear signed document can be converted to a signed 0x01 document is an interesting curiosity, but not much more than that. I have a mild interest in fixing the clearsign end-of-document ambiguity, but I don't want to start changing the canonicalization rules for either 't' or clear text. David p.s. Incidentally, speaking of clear signed data, there are differences in practice in what trailing whitespace is removed. Some programs remove space and tab. Some programs remove only space. Currently, a trailing tab in a clearsigned document is an effective way to break interoperability. Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRLRImH081773; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRLRIHk081772; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRLRHqF081766 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 08C872B47C7; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:27:16 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 22:27:16 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227212715.GA24279@epointsystem.org> References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 02:29:44PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > > signatures in place. > > I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data > interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard > such that > > Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A > > in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line > ending on the final line of A. I think, clearsigned and one-pass signed text documents should work the same way. Data interchange AND human-readability together are worth pursuing. I think, it is perfectly reasonable to expect that Canonize ( Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) ) == Canonize ( A ) -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRJTqmF067335; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRJTq2K067334; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRJTqsX067326 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 11:29:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBRJToS19063 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:50 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBRJTkX6005985 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:46 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBRJTiiT002887 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBRJTi0x002886 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 14:29:44 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227192944.GF31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:38:05AM -0800, "Hal Finney" wrote: > > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > signatures in place. I think the concern is not so much that we need the ability to data interchange, but that there is a point of ambiguity in the standard such that Un-Clearsign ( Clearsign ( A ) ) != A in some cases, specifically around the lack or presence of a line ending on the final line of A. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPv1c062022; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRIPvFZ062021; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:57 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPt1N062013 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E86AB416C5; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B18703.5040600@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:07 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hal Finney Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi Hal, that is fine; in which case I'd just suggest that the spec have a simple one liner in there that suggests that the cleartext format is not required to be reversible / for data interchange: An implementation MAY produce a signature-stripped version of the document, but the format is not intended for data interchange, and there are some minor artifacts such as with the terminating newline. (Or something hopefully shorter.) I admit I couldn't think of a case where we wanted to reverse / interchange. Still, the spec is less than clear on this point, and for programmers who don't follow all the background, a note would be useful. Whichever. I really don't mind which way it goes, but the spec isn't helpful here. Programmers will and do expect the cleartext signing format to be reversable, and it isn't. iang Hal Finney wrote: > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. > > The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data > interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get > verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped > away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into > the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the > signatures in place. > > So what are the rules for storing a clearsigned message, with signature > stripped away? Would we just want to store the byte stream that > was hashed (the portion of it that was from the message and not the > signature bytes)? Or would we want to switch to native line terminators > when we store? Would we strip or keep trailing whitespace when we store? > > If we did spec this, it would then by implication tell a sender how > to at least approximate data interchange. Problems might arise if line > terminators are getting changed. And if we strip trailing whitespace when > we store, then it would be impossible to send a document with trailing > whitespace and have it be received that way. OTOH the reason we strip > trailing whitespace for verification is because some mail systems corrupt > that part, so retaining trailing whitespace on store will not guarantee > data interchange either. > > In short, clearsigning is not really appropriate for data interchange > because of how many ways the message could be corrupted in transit. > > But if we do spec it, I would definitely NOT then put in the spec that > a sender was FORCED to offer a data interchange option! That is far, > far outside anything we should be imposing on an implementation, in a > data format spec. > > Hal Finney > > Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPcmx062002; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRIPc3c062001; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRIPc90061995 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DFE0833C3F; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:36 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B18722.6090406@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 18:25:38 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Hal Finney CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> In-Reply-To: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hal Finney wrote: > I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will > present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", > so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. > For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature > will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think > we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. > > For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine > and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, > getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats > work well. Not for text documents. It seems to me that it is a reasonable expectation that if I clearsign a text document, I should be able to recover the document from the clear signature. Currently that isn't possible with certainty. I do not see the harm in fixing this issue. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRHY3XW055548; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBRHY3x8055547; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from finney.org (226-132.adsl2.netlojix.net [207.71.226.132]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBRHY02n055538 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:34:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from hal@finney.org) Received: by finney.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id B2B1A57F5B; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:38:05 -0800 (PST) To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-Id: <20051227173805.B2B1A57F5B@finney.org> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:38:05 -0800 (PST) From: hal@finney.org ("Hal Finney") Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I'd suggest that clearsigning is aimed more at applications which will present the signed document to users as it was received "on the wire", so that they can read it usefully even with the signature in place. For that purpose the important thing is to know exactly how the signature will be verified so that signers can create valid documents. I think we agree that the spec is adequate for this purpose. For data interchange, you want to start with a document on one machine and sign or encrypt it, send it to another machine and verify/decrypt, getting back the same document. For that purpose the binary formats work well. The problem arises if you want to clearsign but still get data interchange. The sender needs to know not only how the data will get verified, but also how it will be stored if the signature is stripped away. We didn't spec this because it didn't seem to fit that well into the clearsign model, which is oriented around presenting data with the signatures in place. So what are the rules for storing a clearsigned message, with signature stripped away? Would we just want to store the byte stream that was hashed (the portion of it that was from the message and not the signature bytes)? Or would we want to switch to native line terminators when we store? Would we strip or keep trailing whitespace when we store? If we did spec this, it would then by implication tell a sender how to at least approximate data interchange. Problems might arise if line terminators are getting changed. And if we strip trailing whitespace when we store, then it would be impossible to send a document with trailing whitespace and have it be received that way. OTOH the reason we strip trailing whitespace for verification is because some mail systems corrupt that part, so retaining trailing whitespace on store will not guarantee data interchange either. In short, clearsigning is not really appropriate for data interchange because of how many ways the message could be corrupted in transit. But if we do spec it, I would definitely NOT then put in the spec that a sender was FORCED to offer a data interchange option! That is far, far outside anything we should be imposing on an implementation, in a data format spec. Hal Finney Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR9us6D007341; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR9usHW007340; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR9urOb007293 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:56:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E4AD82B4796; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:56:52 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:56:52 +0100 To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051227095652.GA9480@epointsystem.org> References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, Dec 27, 2005 at 09:09:02AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > My results do not agree. If there is no terminating > newline, GPG adds it (as it must). If there is a > terminating line, GPG does not add one. I'm using > FreeBSD and 1.4.2. Same with 1.4.1. and 1.4.2 on Linux and Cygwin -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR99kS9002796; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:46 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR99kHt002795; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:46 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR99jr7002786 for ; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 01:09:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589D0413D3; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:09:44 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B104AE.2090905@systemics.com> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 09:09:02 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vedaal@hush.com Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: vedaal@hush.com wrote: > i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this > > gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it > > if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, > then the signature block begins right after the text > > if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, > then gnupg signs after the empty line > > they are *not* identical or interchangeable > > here are two, one with the empty line, > and one without: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > test > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) My results do not agree. If there is no terminating newline, GPG adds it (as it must). If there is a terminating line, GPG does not add one. I'm using FreeBSD and 1.4.2. iang galland$ echo "test" > test galland$ cat test test galland$ gpg -ats -u DSS3 test gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "Ian Grigg DSS3 " 1024-bit DSA key, ID DABCCA96, created 2000-03-26 galland$ cat test.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDsQM/4yubUNq8ypYRAvt0AJ9Mz6HniSHDC50tCwbkfhzfHYPbNACeIcgV TNCBA1EqsEB2sC186c1PLwo= =imH/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- galland$ cat test test galland$ echo -n "test" > test galland$ cat test galland$ gpg -ats -u DSS3 test gpg: WARNING: using insecure memory! gpg: please see http://www.gnupg.org/faq.html for more information You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for user: "Ian Grigg DSS3 " 1024-bit DSA key, ID DABCCA96, created 2000-03-26 File `test.asc' exists. Overwrite? (y/N) y galland$ cat test.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFDsQN44yubUNq8ypYRAppqAKDuyDjAe5OilDaA8M4QhCNhyM7b+wCgqO59 81J/3jX2/rahh9p2knSXOO8= =QjIF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR64mB6085995; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBR64meN085994; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBR64lJJ085988 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:04:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AA7133C3F; Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:04:46 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0D97E.2010509@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2005 06:04:46 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: vedaal@hush.com CC: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: vedaal@hush.com wrote: > On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:13 -0800 "Daniel A. Nagy" > wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> >>> I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of >> two files, >>> one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: >>> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> test >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) >> Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My >> implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct >> behavior would >> be reversible. >> The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that >> converted from the >> output of gpg -ts. > > i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this > > gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it > > if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, > then the signature block begins right after the text > > if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, > then gnupg signs after the empty line Not the version I'm using, as I've already stated, and in any case, my issue is with clarity in the I-D. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQN5isl041113; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQN5ijI041112; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:44 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (smtp3.hushmail.com [65.39.178.135]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQN5hMO041106 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vedaal@hush.com) Received: from smtp3.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E1ED5A32EC for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver2.hushmail.com (mailserver2.hushmail.com [65.39.178.21]) by smtp3.hushmail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mailserver2.hushmail.com (localhost.hushmail.com [127.0.0.1]) by mailserver2.hushmail.com (8.12.6/8.12.3) with ESMTP id jBQN5gZD077843 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from vedaal@hush.com) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by mailserver2.hushmail.com (8.12.6/8.12.3/Submit) id jBQN5fE1077842 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:41 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200512262305.jBQN5fE1077842@mailserver2.hushmail.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:05:37 -0800 To: Cc: Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line From: Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:13 -0800 "Daniel A. Nagy" wrote: >On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > >> I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of >two files, >> one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: >> >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> test >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) > >Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My >implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct >behavior would >be reversible. >The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that >converted from the >output of gpg -ts. i really can't see any bug in gnupg about this gnupg clearsigns exactly what the user gives it if the user gives it text with no empty line after it, then the signature block begins right after the text if the user wants a blank line and includes the line return, then gnupg signs after the empty line they are *not* identical or interchangeable here are two, one with the empty line, and one without: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul iQIVAwUBQ7BzPayhY/YEre4gAQgQGBAAhBa1fSRR/gajgxH77fVAUn4UXQPiB9/b ZTYhwLBaGi6JtyH3JiKCKlLFFqlioGkuXKORu0mq5zOF+jDHNOTSrKAQ5Px0u7XL Kt4xpV5x2EIGXo3aTl7Z+NFDkXBGQ+EombpZhRg4bhH+1jWc5R6M3VzIEhojqZfy 4RxAKxrtswZYCzlat860lrLuMSbpJYEQmN9i127o31aBc8AlX0cV5RTUMxVOh6ql KR2Xv5kQkWw3rATrliluFzUzyFAoIOYPiILWhYuG5/ONBqC+L0ap/HO0fL7+aB03 woZBfJ/AEyJU/bKSV1/yyJCsLO73olv+MG5ugFrR2dRfcFDG7GNhJPxI8a8iV7S1 mXhoJS8EQZqL1qN7fV14IL5VF5weTothV0FO4CnewX+pXXH/SNsGEXh0Y7+P4UG+ Z4Vinlv7V8JJIE5lz1ISULPeLKhFUT7L7YesMHs+WpOm1sWD0KJIh+PZNrPSmVmB Ordu/Eob4ICupSMZkdgQ2AUY8GUUkiUvM2+OexdVo73P07V7DVNixoukEtEA+hVx GmYVSQvpQ5edjXP/DITkQF+JI4FdsWl7McpgmpntSFqj+p99XCXBz3DozvuyuY/x baA7SKK+mUVzvhzyM2Pu03RV0XQv5un+zeulaOEkR9WsHqCHM2GDhIwYZayuq58q GVWZ1eiaFao= =uGPl -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Acts of Kindness better the World, and protect the Soul iQIVAwUBQ7BzkqyhY/YEre4gAQjcbg//fj4Y4nfzqHLT57Ud/ru7vPf28vv1x5ph rIV2NUHrrg5rEJ+zt6mj/OsrlOZV8ijcK21hUj/YWPuZOYN6PSme5M5gDYz8qQAe baXnTeh0nuEPdKiH/sYo6jqFw7umRTQk+9vbgGuWnwMTtwoWIXt4zxKkSX1SSJi2 3XKVebMl0LlXPnLTIDyYRHmuJUux+2lEculEBo0gi/SDI3X6KOMWdUrXqVaQBnYe 0QZGGk3MN8NMtUhioOUMLrK1EN5DeGHaJG7Q1I8B9cma50fYEZTc097Rl8KDKPwS 2UfVCzO/Rc00yi8VFrmIglzwvOAd0cYYYfoNUjmJj6vILrpNqj+3KQOt7lG3fOUQ Pq/QRmB6Hoy7nm8wP3KrQPlbz3Ntbhbqnc/x+yhm3p1QndwnJpvSOjXiLcxim7Ij OAv14bXUhy5HKWwlDIZVessW1Hnz3IjDizw82Ct6VMtFpL0YmHmD+KD6tMRw1XIF 973u7ub/vGRNg2yPA1UfpEFnZZeUwgkvK0hs2FB9aSGi4gsg3rZmxgu108KpUMak AOA3zwalf+omfZCJSLJNtRb3iF9bpsidw238npKU7dahOH5MNLykk7+zsk2ONsn7 RYkaf4W1st2DgGcnpNYx+PmN2SPgWMJxTzmPpJATgxdgkONEzU9NDdaL3SvxskYo +5DxZzT/4bU= =+LRk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- addition or subtraction of the empty line, invalidates the signature and this is also true of all commandline pgp versions vedaal Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQLWF8K032953; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQLWFJo032952; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQLWEgq032944 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 13:32:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E62102B4799; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:32:13 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:32:13 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226213213.GC24812@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:03:59PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of two files, > one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > test > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) Yepp, that's a bug in GPG and it does not follow from the spec. My implementation does not do that. In my opinion, the correct behavior would be reversible. The output of gpg --clearsign should be identical to that converted from the output of gpg -ts. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQKJZW4024133; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQKJZKC024132; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:35 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQKJXsL024126 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:19:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQKJWS05700; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:32 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQKJSX6000433; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:28 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQKJQZR031374; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQKJQ7M031373; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 15:19:26 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226201926.GB31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 05:29:01PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > >As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > >example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > >and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > >a clear signature: > > OK, I understand all that. But you've added > a new rule: on signing, always add the extra > line ending. > > And that's what we want to clarify - I don't > think the spec says that. It simply says that > the last newline is not part of the signature. Ok, now we're cooking: we agree. I don't think the spec says that either. I am just saying that that behavior is consistent with the spec, and (I say) a good thing to do, and (to me) follows naturally from what the spec does say. That said, GPG doesn't do it, and PGP (at least the version I have here) does. Both PGP and GPG are compliant with the spec as written. If you add this extra rule to enforce reversibility, GPG will become noncompliant (fixable, but annoying), and many GPG-created signatures will become noncompliant (a little more worrisome). > Can we put that in the spec? Here's what it > says: > > 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. > > When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the > string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn > on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a > line. > > Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at > the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is > generated. > > Here's what I suggest (changes at ***): > > 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 > *** part of the signed document and SHOULD be added by implementations. *** > > When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the > string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn > on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a > line. > > Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at > the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is > generated. > > How's that? I have no objection to that. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQHTjgZ001411; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQHTjg9001410; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:45 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQHTi7C001404 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:29:44 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2870141676; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:29:43 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0285D.2020004@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:29:01 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > a clear signature: OK, I understand all that. But you've added a new rule: on signing, always add the extra line ending. And that's what we want to clarify - I don't think the spec says that. It simply says that the last newline is not part of the signature. By all means, if that's what we agree on, then we should simply state that in the spec: always add a newline on signing, always take it off on reversing (verifying and stripping sig). I'm happy with that rule - even though I don't think that's what all implementations do. > The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation > wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to > add one. > > Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being > "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure > and not part of the signed text. Right that all makes perfect sense - to me. Can we put that in the spec? Here's what it says: 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. When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a line. Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. Here's what I suggest (changes at ***): 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 *** part of the signed document and SHOULD be added by implementations. *** When reversing dash-escaping, an implementation MUST strip the string "- " if it occurs at the beginning of a line, and SHOULD warn on "-" and any character other than a space at the beginning of a line. Also, any trailing whitespace -- spaces (0x20) and tabs (0x09) -- at the end of any line is removed when the cleartext signature is generated. How's that? iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH5VI3098340; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH5Vow098339; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:31 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH5UNv098332 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:05:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3E0933C40; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:05:29 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B022E4.5020005@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:05:40 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ian G , OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >> >>> Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? >> I think it is a bug if we decide that the >> process of cleartext signing is reversable. > > Can you please give an example of how the current system is not > reversible? > > As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For > example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, > and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's > a clear signature: > > test <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG > Now given a document reading "this is a test", here's a > clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here and it IS PART OF THE SIG <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > In what way is this not reversible? >> So, if the process of verification creates >> a file that is the pre-signed version, then >> it has to decide whether the final CRLF has >> to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned >> output. > The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation > wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to > add one. > Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being > "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure > and not part of the signed text. If that were what happened, I'd be happy. But it isn't. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH4Ls7098103; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH4LCT098102; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:21 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH4KG7098096 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:04:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCABB33C1C for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:04:19 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0229E.9080306@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:04:30 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >>>> >>>>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>>>> architects on this? >>>> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >>>> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >>>> specs. >>> I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF >>> (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of >>> the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the >>> presence or lack of line ending on the last line. >> However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. > > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? Because information about the final character is lost. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH3oGm098066; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQH3opX098065; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:50 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQH3nBr098059 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 09:03:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE9C133C1C; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:03:48 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0227F.8090704@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 17:03:59 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" CC: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> In-Reply-To: <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> David Shaw wrote: >>> On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >>>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >>>> >>>>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>>>> architects on this? >>>> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >>>> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >>>> specs. >>> I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF >>> (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of >>> the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the >>> presence or lack of line ending on the last line. >> However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. > > Yes it does. GPG behaves slightly differently with messages entered from the > console, but that makes a lot of sense, too. I don't see any bugs in either > the specs and GPG. I have coded up my own OpenPGP implementation based on > the spec (http://pgp.epointsystem.org/tool) and it interoperates perfectly > with GPG. I have just tested GPG yet again, and cleartext signatures of two files, one without a newline at the end, and one with, look identical: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (FreeBSD) Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGmp7d096654; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGmpFb096653; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:51 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGmo57096647 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:48:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQGmnS04000; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:49 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQGmjX6032132; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:45 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQGmhGK031067; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQGmhIQ031066; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:48:43 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226164843.GA31051@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > So, does this output as a line terminated > string or as an unterminated string? : > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > my signed text > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > xxxxx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Sorry, I did not answer this in my earlier mail. This is output as an unterminated string. If you wanted it to be output as a terminated string, you'd have generated this: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > my signed text > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > xxxxx > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Note the blank line between "my signed text" and the BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGdG3E094022; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:16 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGdGhd094021; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:16 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGdFpD094013 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:39:15 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQGdES03937; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:14 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQGdAX6032110; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:10 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQGd8sp031027; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQGd8n0031026; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 11:39:08 -0500 From: David Shaw To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226163908.GC7066@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ian G , OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 04:20:28PM +0000, Ian G wrote: > David Shaw wrote: > > > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? > > I think it is a bug if we decide that the > process of cleartext signing is reversable. Can you please give an example of how the current system is not reversible? As far as I can see, the current system is quite reversible. For example, given a document reading "this is a test" (no line ending, and the last character in the file is the second t from test), here's a clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Now given a document reading "this is a test", here's a clear signature: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 test <<----- There is a CRLF here and it IS PART OF THE SIG <<----- There is a CRLF here, but it is NOT PART OF THE SIG -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- blah blah blah -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- In what way is this not reversible? > So, if the process of verification creates > a file that is the pre-signed version, then > it has to decide whether the final CRLF has > to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned > output. The final CRLF is not part of the document. If a user/implementation wants a final CRLF in there that is part of the document, they need to add one. Think of the "BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE" string as actually being "CRLF-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE". It's part of the message structure and not part of the signed text. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGLBle089956; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQGLBpr089955; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQGLBYw089949 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37607416B2; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:21:10 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43B0184C.6010505@systemics.com> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:20:28 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? I think it is a bug if we decide that the process of cleartext signing is reversable. So, if the process of verification creates a file that is the pre-signed version, then it has to decide whether the final CRLF has to be preserved or stripped in the unsigned output. So, does this output as a line terminated string or as an unterminated string? : -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- my signed text -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- xxxxx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Now, if we decide that the process of signing is not one that is deterministically reversable, it is not an issue. In practice, verification is possibly all we need - and we have that. (I have been unable to convince myself that we need reversibility - I can't think of a case where I would want it... but that's just me!) iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQFaOsZ083121; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQFaOD0083120; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQFaNoR083071 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:36:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBQFaLS03431 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:22 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBQFaHX6031929 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:17 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBQFaGux030884 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:16 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBQFaGkN030883 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:36:15 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226153615.GB7066@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > >> > >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > >>> architects on this? > >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > >> specs. > > > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. > > However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. Can you give an example of why you feel this is a bug? David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQDh6Gp067285; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQDh6AD067284; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:06 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org (120.156-228-195.hosting.adatpark.hu [195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQDh5st067276 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 05:43:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1171E2B4799; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:43:04 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 14:43:04 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051226134303.GA24812@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 26, 2005 at 12:29:15PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > David Shaw wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > >> > >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > >>> architects on this? > >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > >> specs. > > > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. > > However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. Yes it does. GPG behaves slightly differently with messages entered from the console, but that makes a lot of sense, too. I don't see any bugs in either the specs and GPG. I have coded up my own OpenPGP implementation based on the spec (http://pgp.epointsystem.org/tool) and it interoperates perfectly with GPG. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQCT76t058504; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBQCT7qW058498; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:07 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBQCT6Nb058433 for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 04:29:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C9E733C1C for ; Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:29:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43AFE21B.1000102@algroup.co.uk> Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 12:29:15 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: >> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: >> >>> But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG >>> architects on this? >> I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all >> users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the >> specs. > > I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF > (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of > the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the > presence or lack of line ending on the last line. However, it doesn't. This strikes me as a bug both in GPG and in the spec. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBEDuHdY019155; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jBEDuHKH019154; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jBEDuGGe019143 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 05:56:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jBEDuFS12203 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:15 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jBEDuDX6014467 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:13 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jBEDu9ts022957 for ; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jBEDu9in022956 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 08:56:09 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Secret key transport Message-ID: <20051214135609.GA22783@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Well into comically late in the game here, but a question recently came up about the secret key transport format. Namely, is there one? 2440bis has a public key transport format (the whole of section 10.1), and the format of secret key and secret subkey packets is defined, but there doesn't seem to be an analogue to section 10.1 for secret keys. For example, I've seen secret keys in this format: - Secret key packet - User ID packet - Selfsig on user ID - Secret subkey packet - Selfsig on subkey I've also seen secret keys in this format: - Secret key packet - User ID packet - Secret subkey packet (i.e. missing the selfsigs). The first example strikes me as preferable as there is a mild benefit to having the secret key format parallel the public key format in that an implementation can extract the public key from the secret key automatically. The second example requires a public key to be sent in addition to the secret key to get the selfsigs (while the selfsig on the user ID is optional, the one on the subkey isn't). Either way, though, 2440bis seems silent on this subject. Is this something that needs a line or two of text? David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8EqDLS087456; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8EqDv0087455; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8EqCfA087439 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 06:52:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB8EqAS31564 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:11 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB8Eq6X6006005 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:06 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB8Eq51H006000 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB8Eq5fe005999 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:05 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208145205.GA5943@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > > > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > > architects on this? > > I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > specs. I agree. I think the spec is just fine in this regard: the final CRLF (the one before the "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----") is not part of the signature. That allows for the GPG behavior to preserve the presence or lack of line ending on the last line. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CnucV061292; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:56 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8CnuGk061291; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:56 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8Cnt8k061277 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:49:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 55D5262; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:49:54 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:49:54 +0100 To: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208124954.GB24621@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 01:23:01PM +0100, Werner Koch wrote: > On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > > > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > > architects on this? > > I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all > users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the > specs. I, for one, like the way GPG behaves in this respect very much. Any change to the spec that would make gpg's current behavior non-compliant should be considered harmful, IMHO. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8ChbjM060591; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8ChbYM060590; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8ChaOE060583 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:43:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id CD43C5F; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:43:35 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 13:43:35 +0100 To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line Message-ID: <20051208124335.GA24621@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 11:43:48AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > So, what you are proposing is that when > an unterminated message is signed: > > -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > this message was signed unterminated > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > b1ab1a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > It recovers as "this message was signed unterminated" > as it went in? And then this becomes: > > > -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > this message was already terminated > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > b1ab1a > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > which extracts as "this message was already terminated > " (i.e., preserving its one newline). Exactly. -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CRNLD059225; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8CRNES059224; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8CRM9n059217 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 04:27:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1EkKyA-0003z8-Ig for ; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:33:54 +0100 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1EkKnd-0004W6-Bn; Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:23:01 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: Ian G Cc: "Daniel A. Nagy" , OpenPGP Subject: Re: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Organisation: g10 Code GmbH OpenPGP: id=5B0358A2; url=finger:wk@g10code.com Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 13:23:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> (Ian G.'s message of "Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000") Message-ID: <87bqzrhj6i.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000, Ian G said: > But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG > architects on this? I recall that we tweaked gpg's behaviour in this regard until all users were satisfied. Thus I'd say not to add new requirement to the specs. Salam-Shalom, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8BhNmj050986; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8BhNuC050985; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8BhN6K050979 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 03:43:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7225651AA; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:43:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43981C74.1070403@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:43:48 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel A. Nagy" Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Outstanding question - rule on cleartext signing last line References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> In-Reply-To: <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:52:52AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > > >>(I never did see a resolution to that question? >>What then was the rule on the last newline?) > > > In order for the cleartext signed message to verify, there is no need to add > another newline; the standard allows for text messages where the last line > is not terminated. GPG actually REMOVES the last newline, if the input comes > from the console, in order to allow for cleartext messages with an > unterminated last line. I like this feature a lot. > > If terminating the last newline is not required, then one-pass signed and > clearsigned text messages can be converted back-and-forth without access to > the secret key (or any cryptography, for that matter). I think this feature > is worth preserving. > > Thus, I propose not requiring the termination of the last line (and not > terminating it automagically). So, what you are proposing is that when an unterminated message is signed: -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- this message was signed unterminated -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- b1ab1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- It recovers as "this message was signed unterminated" as it went in? And then this becomes: -----BEGIN SIGNED MESSAGE----- this message was already terminated -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- b1ab1a -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- which extracts as "this message was already terminated " (i.e., preserving its one newline). OK, I'd be happy with that. As long as it is a solid rule. But I think we need to hear from the PGP Inc and GPG architects on this? iang Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8AfrWc037216; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB8AfqwE037212; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:53 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.epointsystem.org ([195.228.156.120]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB8AfpIf037199 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 02:41:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from nagydani@epointsystem.org) Received: by mail.epointsystem.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 879EF2B47CD; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:41:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2005 11:41:50 +0100 To: Ian G Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: [Fwd: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3] Message-ID: <20051208104150.GA14918@epointsystem.org> References: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: nagydani@epointsystem.org (Daniel A. Nagy) Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Thu, Dec 08, 2005 at 09:52:52AM +0000, Ian G wrote: > (I never did see a resolution to that question? > What then was the rule on the last newline?) In order for the cleartext signed message to verify, there is no need to add another newline; the standard allows for text messages where the last line is not terminated. GPG actually REMOVES the last newline, if the input comes from the console, in order to allow for cleartext messages with an unterminated last line. I like this feature a lot. If terminating the last newline is not required, then one-pass signed and clearsigned text messages can be converted back-and-forth without access to the secret key (or any cryptography, for that matter). I think this feature is worth preserving. Thus, I propose not requiring the termination of the last line (and not terminating it automagically). -- Daniel Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB89qdD7024851; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB89qddA024850; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB89qcno024844 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 01:52:39 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@iang.org) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 947AE65200 for ; Thu, 8 Dec 2005 09:52:21 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43980274.2080404@iang.org> Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:52:52 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://iang.org/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP Subject: [Fwd: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: As a fascinating comment on the trickiness that is cleartext signing, the below just popped up on a user list. Obviously, the app offers the useful feature of reformatting the text according to some metric. Just as obviously this goes way beyond the discussion of whether the whitespace should be stripped from the end, or whether the last newline is added or imputed or stripped or ignored... and the text is likely no longer comparable canonically or otherwise. (I never did see a resolution to that question? What then was the rule on the last newline?) iang -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [PGP-USERS] Word Wrap Problems with PGP 9.0.3 Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 22:25:34 -0700 From: Nick Andriash Reply-To: pgp-users@cryptorights.org To: pgp-users@lists.cryptorights.org I just purchased PGP Desktop Pro and am finding that when I go to clearsign a message, PGP is actually re-flowing and/or word wrapping the text. I use BeckyMail which is as close to a WYSIWYG Editor as there is. When I finish typing my message or editing my reply, I used to simply clearsign the message and send it... there was no word wrapping before signing, except with this latest version of PGP. Does anyone know if or where the setting for that word wrap may be? -- ~~Nick Andriash~~ Courtenay, B.C. Canada __________________________________________________________ the PGP-USERS mailing list Home Pg: cryptorights.org/pgp-users Charter: www.cryptorights.org/lists/pgp-users/charter.html Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6IvKxd062952; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6IvKSp062951; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:20 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6IvJsH062944 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:57:19 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from wk@gnupg.org) Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.50 #1 (Debian)) id 1Eji6Q-0004CU-6R for ; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 20:03:50 +0100 Received: from wk by localhost with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1Ejhty-0008F4-Nd; Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:50:58 +0100 From: Werner Koch To: Holger Sesterhenn Cc: OpenPGP Subject: Re: Charset for embedded filename? References: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Organisation: g10 Code GmbH OpenPGP: id=5B0358A2; url=finger:wk@g10code.com Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:50:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> (Holger Sesterhenn's message of "Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100") Message-ID: <87u0dmkqjx.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/21.4 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100, Holger Sesterhenn said: > Is this filename (string) treated as UTF-8? Yes: 3.4. Text Unless otherwise specified, the character set for text is the UTF-8 [RFC2279] encoding of Unicode [ISO10646]. Shalom-Salam, Werner Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6G04C5041664; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:04 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6G04Lc041663; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:04 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from thingol.aachen.utimaco.de (Thingol.aachen.utimaco.de [194.245.91.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6G02vN041655 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 08:00:03 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Holger.Sesterhenn@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de) Received: (from mail@localhost) by thingol.aachen.utimaco.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) id jB6G01TB018910 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 17:00:01 +0100 Message-ID: <4395B16A.9030609@smgwtest.aachen.utimaco.de> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 16:42:34 +0100 From: Holger Sesterhenn Organization: Utimaco Safeware AG, NL Aachen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.10) Gecko/20050715 Thunderbird/1.0.6 Mnenhy/0.7.2.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 X-SecurE-Mail-Gateway: Version: 5.00.1.1 (smtpd: 6.53.2.2) Date: 20051206155630Z Subject: Charset for embedded filename? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Hi, draft 15 says in chapter 5.9. "Literal Data Packet (Tag 11)" [...] - File name as a string (one-octet length, followed by a file name). This may be a zero-length string. Commonly, if the source of the encrypted data is a file, this will be the name of the encrypted file. An implementation MAY consider the file name in the literal packet to be a more authoritative name than the actual file name. [...] Is this filename (string) treated as UTF-8? How to convert special chars (e.g. German umlauts) if its not UTF-8? -- Best Regards, Holger Sesterhenn --- Internet http://www.utimaco.com/smgw Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6B05r2005609; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6B05B4005608; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6B04JW005601 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 03:00:05 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3997933C1C; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 11:00:04 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43956F34.9030106@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 11:00:04 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:03:17PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > >>> b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length >>> of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By >>> inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than >>> the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if >>> that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). >> I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the >> modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of >> EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading >> zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and >> within it in 3447. > > I did some digging and I think I see the problem here. 2440 and 1991 > correctly describe the encoding. The instructions in 2440bis will not > work as EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (the RFC-2437 version) is only part of the > correct encoding. The encoding is effectively to calculate > EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE (m, emLen - 1) and then prefix the resulting > octet string with a zero octet. There is a similar situation with > leading zeroes for EME-PKCS1-v1_5 for the encrypted session key > packets. > > To make things more complicated, EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE and > EME-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE in RFC-3447 *are* the correct encodings, leading > zero and all. > > Since 3447 obsoletes 2437 anyway, maybe the easiest fix is to use 3447 > and add a note along the lines of "Use 3447 and not 2437 - we really > mean it". Assuming you are right about 3447 (I haven't checked it), then definitely. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6Ar886004507; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB6Ar8OU004506; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mail.links.org (mail.links.org [217.155.92.109]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB6Ar7Fg004498 for ; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:53:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ben@algroup.co.uk) Received: from [193.133.15.218] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.links.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED2EB33C1C; Tue, 6 Dec 2005 10:53:02 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <43956D8F.2070105@algroup.co.uk> Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 10:53:03 +0000 From: Ben Laurie User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051025) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 0.93.0.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: >> I was working on my signing code and realised that some issues >> previously discussed do not appear to be resolved in -15 (its possible >> some of these are also new). >> >> a) V4 signatures don't mention how one actually calculates the signature >> - the text only appears for V3 signatures. > > I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Isn't this stated in 5.2.4, > in the paragraph beginning "Once the data body is hashed" ? No, that tells you how to calculate the hash, not what you do with it once you have calculated it. That is, padding, encryption, etc. Cheers, Ben. -- http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html http://www.thebunker.net/ ** ApacheCon - Dec 10-14th - San Diego - http://apachecon.com/ ** "There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB63ScLb051459; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB63ScdN051458; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB63SbCW051451 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:28:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB63SYS26222; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:34 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB63SVX6025213; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:31 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB63SRQa025297; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB63SRod025296; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 22:28:27 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures Message-ID: <20051206032827.GA25102@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 06:03:17PM -0500, David Shaw wrote: > On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length > > of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By > > inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than > > the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if > > that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). > > I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the > modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of > EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading > zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and > within it in 3447. I did some digging and I think I see the problem here. 2440 and 1991 correctly describe the encoding. The instructions in 2440bis will not work as EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (the RFC-2437 version) is only part of the correct encoding. The encoding is effectively to calculate EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE (m, emLen - 1) and then prefix the resulting octet string with a zero octet. There is a similar situation with leading zeroes for EME-PKCS1-v1_5 for the encrypted session key packets. To make things more complicated, EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE and EME-PKCS1-v1_5-ENCODE in RFC-3447 *are* the correct encodings, leading zero and all. Since 3447 obsoletes 2437 anyway, maybe the easiest fix is to use 3447 and add a note along the lines of "Use 3447 and not 2437 - we really mean it". David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5N3RG4021125; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5N3RKR021124; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5N3R3h021116 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:03:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5N3NS23732; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:23 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5N3KX6024434; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:20 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5N3His025044; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5N3HD0025043; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 18:03:17 -0500 From: David Shaw To: OpenPGP Cc: Ben Laurie Subject: Re: -15 still not clear on signatures Message-ID: <20051205230317.GB24855@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: OpenPGP , Ben Laurie References: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <43886B5B.3080802@algroup.co.uk> OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: On Sat, Nov 26, 2005 at 02:04:11PM +0000, Ben Laurie wrote: > > I was working on my signing code and realised that some issues > previously discussed do not appear to be resolved in -15 (its possible > some of these are also new). > > a) V4 signatures don't mention how one actually calculates the signature > - the text only appears for V3 signatures. I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. Isn't this stated in 5.2.4, in the paragraph beginning "Once the data body is hashed" ? > b) EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 takes two parameters - the message, m, and the length > of the encoded message, emLen. emLen is not specified in -15. By > inspection of existing signatures, it seems to me it is one less than > the size of the modulus (which strikes me as theoretically wrong, but if > that's the way it is, I guess that's the way it is). I was under the impression that emLen was equal to the size of the modulus. I'm a bit confused with the two different descriptions of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 (one in rfc-2437, and one in rfc-3447). The leading zero seems to have been added outside of EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 in 2437 and within it in 3447. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JoOQo093630; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5JoO4d093629; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:24 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JoNGx093623 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:50:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5JoMS18607 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:22 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5JoIX6023736 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:18 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5JoG5A024799 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5JoGGF024798 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:50:16 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Other -15 comments Message-ID: <20051205195016.GA24566@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: I recently did a read-over of -15. I've already sent the minor text nits in other mail. These are comments that rise (marginally) above simple wording questions. Much apologies for the late submission. ***** 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says "Third, there are minor weaknesses in the MD5 hash algorithm that make developers prefer other algorithms." Suggest dropping the word "minor". ***** Section 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: V3 keys are deprecated; an implementation SHOULD NOT generate a V3 key, but MAY accept it. but section 11.1. Key Structures says: V3 keys are deprecated. Implementations MUST NOT generate new V3 keys, but MAY continue to use existing ones. These can't both be correct. I lean towards MUST NOT here, personally. ***** The first two paragraphs in section 6.4. Decoding Radix-64 contradict each other. The first says that all non-radix-64 characters must be ignored. The second says that non-radix-64 characters probably indicate a transmission error, "about which a warning message or even a message rejection might be appropriate under some circumstances". Suggest going with the second. ***** David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JWRJY091897; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB5JWRdi091896; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from foobar.cs.jhu.edu (foobar.cs.jhu.edu [128.220.13.173]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB5JWQaE091887 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:32:27 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dshaw@jabberwocky.com) Received: from walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.132.70]) by foobar.cs.jhu.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id jB5JWOS18352 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:24 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [172.24.84.28]) by walrus.hsd1.ma.comcast.net (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id jB5JWLX6023652 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:21 -0500 Received: from grover.jabberwocky.com (grover.jabberwocky.com [127.0.0.1]) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id jB5JWIvO024780 for ; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 Received: (from dshaw@localhost) by grover.jabberwocky.com (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) id jB5JWIWm024779 for ietf-openpgp@imc.org; Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 14:32:18 -0500 From: David Shaw To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Some -15 text nits, part 2 Message-ID: <20051205193218.GA24459@jabberwocky.com> Mail-Followup-To: ietf-openpgp@imc.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline OpenPGP: id=99242560; url=http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: Here is the second half of a -15 proofreading. As before, these are just language nits, and should not have any functional significance. I did note a few items that might be considered functional, but I'm sending them in a different mail so as to not mix them up. Many apologies for the late submission of these. ***** 5.1. Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets says "Note that when an implementation forms several PKESKs with one session key, forming a message that can be decrypted by several keys, the implementation MUST make new PKCS-1 encoding for each key." This needs an "a", so as to read "...MUST make a new PKCS-1 encoding..." ***** 5.2.3.3. Notes on Self-Signatures says "If the key is located by key ID, the algorithm of the primary User ID of the key provides the default symmetric algorithm." Suggest changing "default" to "preferred", as preferred is the word used in all the other examples there. ***** 5.2.3.7. Preferred symmetric algorithms says "Algorithm numbers in section 9." This should be "Algorithm numbers are in section 9." (i.e. add an "are"). ***** 5.2.3.15. Revocation key mentions "1 octet of algid" in the definition. Suggest "1 octet of PK algorithm ID" or similar as we never define "algid" in the document. ***** 5.2.3.23. Reason for Revocation has a sentence "Such a revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 subpacket." Suggest changing this to "Such a revocation SHOULD include an 0x20 code." or similar. 0x20 in this case is not a subpacket, and the rest of this section refers to it as a "code". ***** 5.3. Symmetric-Key Encrypted Session Key Packets has two small formatting bugs. The lines beginning "Zero or more Encrypted Session Key packets" and "The decryption result consists" are both indented an extra space. ***** 5.5.2. Public Key Packet Formats says: V2 keys are identical to the deprecated V3 keys except for the version number. An implementation MUST NOT generate them and may accept or reject them as it sees fit. Suggest capitalizing the "may". ***** 5.5.3. Secret Key Packet Formats has the sentence "The reason for this is that there are some attacks on the private key that can undetectably modify the secret key". That doesn't really parse well. Suggest "The reason for this is that there are some attacks that involve undetectably modifying the secret key". ***** 5.6. Compressed Data Packet (Tag 8) has a note about ZIP and ZLIB, but not BZip2. It might be good to add: BZip2-compressed packets are compressed using the BZip2 algorithm. ***** 6.6. Example of an ASCII Armored Message says "Note that this example is indented by two spaces." The example is, in fact, indented by three spaces, but even so should probably be indented by four spaces like the rest of the document. (Hey, I did say these were nits). ***** 9.4. Hash Algorithms mentions MD5. Suggest adding a reminder to this section that MD5 is deprecated. ***** 10.1. Transferable Public Keys has a paragraph beginning "After the User ID or Attribute packets there may be one or more Subkey packets." This should be "zero or more" Subkey packets, as is correctly stated a few paragraphs up from there. In the same section, there is a paragraph beginning "Each Subkey packet must be followed by one Signature packet", there is a sentence "For subkeys that can issue signatures, the subkey binding signature must contain an embedded signature subpacket with a primary key binding signature (0x19) issued by the subkey on the top level key". Suggest capitalizing the MUST. ***** In section 10.2. OpenPGP Messages, the paragraph beginning "In addition, decrypting a Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet" has a blank line in the middle of the paragraph. ***** Section 11.1. Key Structures says "A subkey always has a single signature after it that is issued using the primary key to tie the two keys together. This binding signature may be in either V3 or V4 format, but SHOULD be V4." Suggest adding "Subkeys that can issue signatures must have a V4 binding signature due to the REQUIRED embedded primary key binding signature." ***** 12.1. Symmetric Algorithm Preferences says "Since it is found on a self-signature, it is possible that a keyholder may have different preferences." Suggest adding the word "multiple" as in "... multiple different preferences." In the same section, in the last paragraph, suggest removing the parentheses around the Alice example. ***** Section 13. Security Considerations says: * SHA384 requires the same work as SHA512. In general, there are few reasons to use it -- you need a situation where one needs more security than SHA256, but do not want to have the 512-bit data length. "but do not want" should probably be "but does not want". ***** 14. Implementation Nits says: * PGP 2.6.X and 5.0 do not trim trailing whitespace from a "canonical text" signature. They only remove it from cleartext signatures. These signatures are not OpenPGP compliant -- OpenPGP requires trimming the whitespace. If you wish to interoperate with PGP 2.6.X or PGP 5, you may wish to accept these non-compliant signatures. This item is no longer needed as the draft no longer requires trimming whitespace from canonical text signatures. ***** In section 16. References (Normative), the reference to BZ2 points to . This is no longer correct, and should be . ***** In section 17. References (Non-Normative), some of the references are no longer referred to (BLEICHENBACHER, DONNERHACKE, RFC1983). I'm not sure if this is a problem or not, as they are not normative anyway. Either way, I do suggest changing "Non-Normative" to "Informative" as that is the current recommended wording on rfc-editor.org. David Received: from above.proper.com (localhost.vpnc.org [127.0.0.1]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB1AdSsK038043; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org) Received: (from majordom@localhost) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9/Submit) id jB1AdSNg038042; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) X-Authentication-Warning: above.proper.com: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org using -f Received: from mailgate.enhyper.net ([80.168.109.121]) by above.proper.com (8.12.11/8.12.9) with ESMTP id jB1AdRDF038034 for ; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 02:39:28 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from iang@systemics.com) Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mailgate.enhyper.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C3DE64067; Thu, 1 Dec 2005 10:39:16 +0000 (GMT) Message-ID: <438ED2EF.8050302@systemics.com> Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 10:39:43 +0000 From: Ian G Organization: http://financialcryptography.com/ User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (X11/20050921) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: David Shaw Cc: ietf-openpgp@imc.org Subject: Re: Some -15 comments References: <20051115181657.8A9FF57F2F@finney.org> <20051116020719.GA14921@epointsystem.org> <20051130154725.GA23127@jabberwocky.com> In-Reply-To: <20051130154725.GA23127@jabberwocky.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ietf-openpgp@mail.imc.org Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe: List-ID: David Shaw wrote: > On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 03:07:20AM +0100, Daniel A. Nagy wrote: > > >>As for the subject of our discussion, I think that we all agree that the >>spec for 0x80 should be stripped of "a note from one person to another..." >>bit., because one major implementation does not treat it that way. Yes. >>The only disagreement seems to be whether "a note from one person to >>another" should be retained as an interoperable feature or should it be >>delegated to private notation namespace. >> >>The disadvantage of the latter approach would be that various implementers >>would (possibly) implement this same semantics with a host of different >>notation names and won't interoperate. >> >>Now, I can see that implementing the former using a type flag also causes >>problems. Maybe, it should be a common, ITEF-namespace notation? Or an >>entirely separate subpacket type akin to "reason for revocation"? My view - it has to be outside the spec. "a note from one person to another" is a very high level thing and we'll never be able to nail down what it means. And if we do, we then have to add all the other variants like "a note from one person to two persons..." "a note from the program to a person..." "a note in XML..." >>I am not sure. But in either case, as far as immediate modifications to the >>standard text are concerned, this "a note..." part should be removed from >>the definition of 0x80, because it means something that 0x80 definitely >>doesn't. Whether or not to add that text someplace else is an entirely >>different question. > > > Is this rough consensus? Removing that part, yes, I would agree. iang PS: point of order here - as we are in last call, what are we "permitted" to change? Only completely wrong things? Or is this flexible? iang