Those commands verify what I was talking about. I would have included them
originally but my post was already too long. I don’t work with encryption much
but it didn’t seem right. Any idea why MoveIt would be encrypting this way? I
tried to find any issues with that product but didn’t come up with much. Is
there any hard documentation anywhere that would state this that I could send
them? I know they are going to assume their product is working correctly. I
would assume they use it with other customers. And in addition…why does GPG
decrypt the file correctly? Thanks for your help on this.
c:\Program Files (x86)\GNU\GnuPG\pub>gpg --edit-key i...@email.com
gpg (GnuPG) 2.0.30; Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software: you are free to change and redistribute it.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.
Secret key is available.
pub 2048R/617C9C82 created: 2016-08-10 expires: never usage: SC
trust: ultimate validity: ultimate
sub 2048R/D9D25C9A created: 2016-08-10 expires: never usage: E
[ultimate] (1). ID <i...@email.com >
c:\Program Files (x86)\GNU\GnuPG\pub>gpg --list-packets
c:\users\user\desktop\TEST160811100826.txt.pgp
:pubkey enc packet: version 3, algo 1, keyid 855D6DB5617C9C82
data: [2048 bits]
You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: " ID <i...@email.com>"
2048-bit RSA key, ID 617C9C82, created 2016-08-10
:encrypted data packet:
length: 68
mdc_method: 2
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 617C9C82, created 2016-08-10
" ID <i...@email.com>"
:compressed packet: algo=1
:literal data packet:
mode b (62), created 1470924984, name="TEST.txt",
raw data: 19 bytes
Scott Linnebur
IT Solutions Architect
(303) 846-6176 Desk
(720) 334-5206 Cell
slinne...@redrobin.com<mailto:slinne...@redrobin.com>
[RedRobin_Email_Logo_White_NoClearance]
From: Brian Minton [mailto:br...@minton.name]
Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2016 6:59 AM
To: Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com>; Scott Linnebur
<slinne...@redrobin.com>; gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: File Encrypted with Primary key
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
You can use gpg --list-packets to see exactly what OpenPGP packets are present
in the ciphertext. That would show you in great detail exactly what their
software sent you.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iIAEAREKACghHEJyaWFuIE1pbnRvbiA8YnJpYW5AbWludG9uLm5hbWU+BQJXuaWV
AAoJEGuOs6Blz7qpQUUA+wWcZe2Dod/SfyClhZW99j985S2Raji6R+0si31K7vYo
AP9zynHbX0fmTIRXTelRtkxE1Tp816Dtn5FeZbjUlprzvw==
=hhbz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sun, Aug 21, 2016, 6:53 AM Peter Lebbing
<pe...@digitalbrains.com<mailto:pe...@digitalbrains.com>> wrote:
I have no experience with the software you mention. Keep that in mind
while reading my ramblings.
On 19/08/16 17:56, Scott Linnebur wrote:
> I have a suspicion that is the cause but I can’t test it.
My key looks like this:
$ gpg2 -k de500b3e
pub rsa2048/DE500B3E 2009-11-12 [C] [expires: 2017-10-19]
uid [ultimate] Peter Lebbing
<pe...@digitalbrains.com<mailto:pe...@digitalbrains.com>>
sub rsa2048/DE6CDCA1 2009-11-12 [S] [expires: 2017-10-19]
sub rsa2048/73A33BEE 2009-11-12 [E] [expires: 2017-10-19]
sub rsa2048/B65D8246 2009-12-05 [A] [expires: 2017-10-19]
If something is encrypted to this key, gpg2 will mention the following:
$ gpg2 test.gpg
gpg: encrypted with 2048-bit RSA key, ID 73A33BEE, created 2009-11-12
"Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com<mailto:pe...@digitalbrains.com>>"
So it explicitly tells me that it was encrypted to the
encryption-capable subkey 73A33BEE. If it tells you that it was
encrypted to the primary key ID instead, I think your analysis is right.
> I can’t find
> anyway to force the primary key to encrypt
I don't think it is possible to force a key to be used in a way that is
not indicated as a capability for that key. If something encrypts to a
key that is not encryption-capable, that seems to me to be a major bug.
Subkeys and key capability flags have been around for practically
forever by now. Software that can't deal with this is not OpenPGP
compatible and probably ancient.
> and I can’t figure out how to
> generate a key pair without secondary keys in it.
It's possible, but first lets take a look if there is a different
solution. Keys that can both sign and encrypt are frowned upon. The
primary key necessarily has the Certify capability, which is a form of
signing. So it shouldn't get the Encrypt capability.
HTH,
Peter.
--
I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail.
You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy.
My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter>
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org<mailto:Gnupg-users@gnupg.org>
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
_______________________________________________
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
