On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com> wrote: > On 10/11/14 12:02, Nicholas Cole wrote: >> So the confusion is >> that you have one single command that deals with verifying both a >> detached signature and with a file that contains a signature? > > Yes. > >> Is the best fix for this to introduce two new commands > > That seems extreme. Although you could add commands that make it > explicit what you want, removing the existing, ambiguous one would cause > massive breakage of deployed scripts. Werner is always very cautious > about doing that. > > Maybe this avenue of thought can help come up with a good solution. When > people verify a detached signature, they usually have two files named: > > file.ext > file.ext.sig > > If GnuPG encounters this situation, but file.ext.sig is not a detached > signature, it could display a big fat warning: > > WARNING: file.ext.sig is NOT a detached signature; the file file.ext is > NOT VERIFIED!
Yes, Werner is very good at not breaking things that don't need to be broken. But in fact, it is the fact that scripts depend on this that made me think that this might be a case where things *should* get broken, because this is actually a serious security flaw, and the scripts in question need fixing. In many cases, no one is going to be around to read the warning you suggest. Just a thought. N. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
