Re: Insecure Memory Warning on HP-UX 11

[Joseph Oreste Bruni]

This is probably an HP packaging problem. I've built GPG on HP-UX 11.11 and it works fine with the setuid-root bit enabled.

Joe


On Jan 24, 2007, at 7:55 AM, Schwant, Gunnar, Dr. (K-GOT-1/1) wrote:

The only problems I've encountered with older versions of GPG were with regards to libiconv and gettext not being present.

Hi!

We installed GnuPG 1.4.2.2 on HP-UX 11 as released by HP:

<http://h20293.www2.hp.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do? productNumbe

r=HPUXIEXP1111>

http://h20293.www2.hp.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do? productNumber

=HPUXIEXP1111

<http://h20293.www2.hp.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do? productNumbe

r=HPUXIEXP1123>

http://h20293.www2.hp.com/portal/swdepot/displayProductInfo.do? productNumber

=HPUXIEXP1123

Unfortunately, GnuPG displays a warning about insecure memory:

---
gpg: Warning: using insecure memory!
---

We tried to fix this by following the advise of the GnuPG FAQ

 <http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/faqs.html#q6.1>
http://www.gnupg.org/(en)/documentation/faqs.html#q6.1


this the
problem even got worse. GnuPG now refuses to work at all. I get the
following error
message:

---
gpg: Ohhhh jeeee: ... this is a bug (g10.c:1768:main)
secmem usage: 0/0 bytes in 0/0 blocks of pool 0/32768
Abort
---


the

privs.
GnuPG drops root privileges as soon as locked memory is allocated.

should be

the
program displays the above error message and aborts.

(See

and did setuid(root) permissions on the gpg binary. However, after we did I have searched the web to find out what this error message is about and got impression that there appears to be a problem with dropping the suid (root) After dropping the suid(root) privs, the effective and the real user id identical. GnuPG performs an extra check to verify this. As this check fails <http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021824.html> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021824.html , <http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021826.html> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021826.html , <http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021827.html> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021827.html , <http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021828.html> http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2005-February/ 021828.html .)

the developers of GnuPG?

Any help or advise is very appreciated.

Many thanks and best regards,

Gunnar.


_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

What do you think: Is this a problem which has to be adressed to HP or to

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users