gmane.comp.encryption.gpg.gnutls.devel

Re: OpenPGP Browser Support

Duane — 2008-07-24T22:37:18

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

Re: OpenPGP Browser Support

Daniel Kahn Gillmor — 2008-07-24T17:10:15

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

OpenPGP Browser Support

Duane — 2008-07-24T05:07:44

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

Re: some opencdk history

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-12T09:17:39

I don't know if this is enough. We should have a way to indicate that this key is encrypted otherwise it would not be distinguishable from broken keys. Do you have something in mind for that?

Re: some opencdk history

Ludovic Courtès — 2008-07-10T19:14:04

Hi, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos gnutls.org> writes: Yes, but that would cause an incompatibility for little in return, so I thing we'd be better off leaving things as they are. Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: some opencdk history

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-10T17:10:49

Indeed it should be moved to the core library. regards, Nikos

Re: some opencdk history

Daniel Kahn Gillmor — 2008-07-10T02:40:55

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

Re: some opencdk history

Ludovic Courtès — 2008-07-09T21:23:21

Hi, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos gnutls.org> writes: Still, the Guile bindings keep providing OpenPGP support as part of the `(gnutls extra)' module, released under the GPLv3+, not the LGPL. Does that mean they're not in sync with core GnuTLS (which wouldn't necessarily be a problem)? Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: some opencdk history

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-09T16:49:59

What will happen if someone tries to access the MPIs?

Re: some opencdk history

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-09T16:48:58

This wasn't the only reason. Of course the GPL parts had to be removed, but there were also some other parts under LGPL that we didn't use at that time in gnutls and/or required some rewritting, so they were also dropped. Yes the FSF has relicensed all the parts of opencdk that we needed for proper openpgp certificate support in gnutls. Those are the parts that are now included. Ah ok... But still in the master git branch some things are required to be added for this patch to work (I remember something that had to do with symmetric encryption was missing). Would you like to add this part as well? Ok. I'll include this patch in 2.4.x as well. regards, Nikos

Re: some opencdk history

Daniel Kahn Gillmor — 2008-07-08T15:52:27

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

GnuTLS 2.5.2

Simon Josefsson — 2008-07-08T15:44:08

_______________________________________________ Gnutls-devel mailing list Gnutls-devel< at >gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnutls-devel

some opencdk history (was: lib/opencdk/read-packet.c: read_s2k() implementation)

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-05T08:21:56

Hello Daniel, I've finally found some time to check your patch and I have some remarks. The first is about patches in opencdk. The opencdk library included in gnutls is a crippled version of the "full" opencdk library by Timo Schulz. This crippling was done for mainly two reasons. The full opencdk library contained GPL code that forced us to include the openpgp support only in libextra, and the second is that we only wanted to include the parts of opencdk we used. Thus if you or anyone wants to add anything to gnutls' opencdk it might be appropriate to check the older opencdk library if it contains the code and is under LGPL. This still will require some porting (since now the included opencdk uses gnutls' internal api) but that wouldn't be that difficult. About the specific patch, it is quite useful, but since it does not affect the gnutls' API or add anything to it, I'll keep from applying it until it is complete. regards, Nikos [0]. http://www.gnu.org/software/gnutls/releases/opencdk/ http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/opencdk

Re: [PATCH] Little leak fix

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos — 2008-07-05T07:55:43

Thank you for the patch. It was applied (slightly modified)! regards, Nikos

[PATCH] Little leak fix

Colin Leroy — 2008-07-04T12:07:11

Hello, I've found out this via valgrind: ==5806== 7,698 (504 direct, 7,194 indirect) bytes in 9 blocks are definitely lost in loss record 175 of 248 ==5806== at 0x4C220BC: calloc (vg_replace_malloc.c:397) ==5806== by 0xED2FE11: _asn1_add_node_only (structure.c:54) ==5806== by 0xED2FFF2: _asn1_copy_structure3 (structure.c:398) ==5806== by 0xED3038D: asn1_create_element (structure.c:690) ==5806== by 0x9733F7A: _gnutls_x509_decode_octet_string (common.c:832) ==5806== by 0x9734243: _gnutls_x509_read_value (common.c:912) ==5806== by 0x974756E: _decode_pkcs12_auth_safe (pkcs12.c:76) ==5806== by 0x9748A67: gnutls_pkcs12_get_bag (pkcs12.c:598) Attached is a patch which fixes it. HTH,

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Simon Josefsson — 2008-07-02T18:03:45

Hi. I applied the first part of your patch, that still looked like the right thing. Thanks, /Simon

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Simon Josefsson — 2008-07-02T18:02:01

I had the exact same thought. :) I prefer to always run the Guile tests, and that is simpler than duplicating it in C. Generating DH pair uses libgcrypt's RNG code, which may be quite slow on some machines, so it shouldn't be used too much in the self tests. Avoiding duplicating it in C helps here. /Simon

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Ludovic Courtès — 2008-07-02T17:32:38

Hi Simon, Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes: Good news! Maybe that's an indication that either you should always run the Guile tests, or the test should be duplicated in C. ;-) Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Ludovic Courtès — 2008-07-02T17:29:08

Hi, Simon Josefsson josefsson.org> writes: Hmm, it appeared to be needed back then (some C file didn't find ), but now that I've reverted the patch, I can no longer reproduce the problem. So maybe this can be ignored... Thanks, Ludovic.

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Simon Josefsson — 2008-07-02T16:42:53

Eh, I meant of course: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnutls.git;a=commitdiff;h=b32735e1e275c4a2dbf544c04cdf344181fea555 /Simon

Re: guile self-tests fail in v.2.5?

Simon Josefsson — 2008-07-02T16:16:27

Thanks, that allowed me to track down the problem. It was a silly typo in the dh generation code: http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=gnutls.git;a=commitdiff;h=bc11d56f6461ff0a2afcae7f864bed54a7b337c1 Just getting the gnutls debug log is often sufficient to solve problems like this. I know how to do that for the guile code now... Thanks, Simon