Enabling and using ECC keys (any reason not to?)

[Mike Ingle]

The current version of Confidant Mail for Windows includes GPG 1.4.19. 
However, the code is written to support version 2.1 and ECC keys. If you 
point it to GPG 2.1, it will let GPG handle passphrases, and will let 
you create and rotate ECC keys.


Is there any reason not to start using them? I have been reluctant to 
bundle version 2.1, because once people start using ECC keys, using 
version 2.1 becomes mandatory. GPG makes you ask very nicely 
(--full-gen-key --expert) to get an ECC key. Is this just a backward 
compatibility thing, or is the security of ECC keys not fully trusted yet?


I want to enable them, but not until it's safe.

Thanks,
Mike

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

Re: Enabling and using ECC keys (any reason not to?)

[Werner Koch]

On Thu, 26 Mar 2015 09:59, m...@confidantmail.org said:

> Is there any reason not to start using them? I have been reluctant to
> bundle version 2.1, because once people start using ECC keys, using

There is no deployed base of ECC capable OpenPGP implementation yet.
Thus ECC is not enabled by default becuase it does not make much sense
to ask people to create ECC keys if there is virtually nobody else who
is able to use it.

A second reason is that the plan is to use Ed25519/Curve25519 as the
default ECC curves instead of the NIST curves.  ECDH for Curve25519 is
not yet implemented  

> compatibility thing, or is the security of ECC keys not fully trusted
> yet?

Our ECC implementation might still be subject to side channel attacks
thus if that is part of your threat model you may want to wait a bit
longer.  However mitigating SCA is a never ending cops and gendarme game.

If you do not need to migrate an old inbstallation I would always
suggest to go with 2.1.


Salam-Shalom,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.


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

Re: upgrading v1 to v2

[Pete Stephenson]

On Mar 26, 2015 4:47 AM, "Dave Kimble"  wrote:
>
> Ubuntu 14.04 with gnupg 1.4.16 installed from Ubuntu repository.
> Enigmail says it is about time I upgraded to gnupg v2.
> Ubuntu Software Centre says I have the latest version.
>
> I have git cloned gnupg ?v2.0.26? and attempted to configure.

Any particular reason you want GnuPG 2.0.x instead of 2.1? There's very
little difference for most users between 1.x and 2.0.x.

2.1.x adds ECC support, which is nice, but there aren't any packages yet
for it in Ubuntu.

Since you're on Ubuntu you could just run "sudo apt-get install gnupg2" and
GnuPG 2.0.x would be installed alongside 1.x. Although it wouldn't show the
latest version number it'd still have all the security updates backported.

> Obviously I am doing something wrong, so its my fault, but this is
> ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS if you want people to adopt gnupg.  I work with
> clients who don't know what an email client is, let alone what theirs is
> called, on a wide variety of OSs.  They cannot possibly do this all
> this.  Is it too much to ask that you produce an Ubuntu-friendly
> repository that takes care of all the dependencies and compiling?

Compiling from source is not for the faint of heart. Fortunately, the
gnupg2 package exists on Ubuntu and makes the installation easy.

Cheers!
-Pete
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: upgrading v1 to v2

[Philip Jackson]

On 26/03/15 03:39, Dave Kimble wrote:
> Ubuntu 14.04 with gnupg 1.4.16 installed from Ubuntu repository.
> Enigmail says it is about time I upgraded to gnupg v2.
> Ubuntu Software Centre says I have the latest version.
> 
I have a ubuntu flavour 14.04 and gnupg2 is certainly available in its
repository as well as gnupg1.1.16

You should easily be able to find 2.0.22 in 14.04.

In a few weeks, you'll be able to get 15.04 (I suppose) and this could have
something later than 2.0.22.

Philip




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Brian Minton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-

Hash: SHA256


I think gmail is the single most popular email client, with 500 million

users.  I think that until there is a way to verify pgp signatures from

within gmail, pgp/mime will continue to show up as an attachment.

There are ways to use pgp/mime or inline pgp with gmail, but nothing

great.  I'm hopeful for google's end to end, and I currently use

mailvelope, but as far as I know, neither of those options supports

PGP/MIME.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-

Version: GnuPG v1


iF4EAREIAAYFAlUUMNoACgkQa46zoGXPuqnDTwD/QapSkfkZDsUfXf1rVw7O3Bbk

VuxnKzl/+sk8EuyD9dcA/RSd31z6jC1u1EFGptqQw3DWpEQqcU1G6LS/GPfclBWN

=hHOn

-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Enabling and using ECC keys (any reason not to?)

[Johan Wevers]

On 26-03-2015 9:59, Mike Ingle wrote:

> Is this just a backward
> compatibility thing, or is the security of ECC keys not fully trusted yet?

The buzz about Dual_EC_DRBG made it clear that it is possible to design
curves where the designers have access to data that allows them to
compromise the system. Wether the curves used in a given implementation
are suspected to possibly have such a weakness is a matter of debate. I
didn't check the status of this for the curves used in GnuPG 2.1.

-- 
ir. J.C.A. Wevers
PGP/GPG public keys at http://www.xs4all.nl/~johanw/pgpkeys.html


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

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Ville Määttä]

On 26.03.15 18:17, Brian Minton wrote:
> I think gmail is the single most popular email client, with 500 million
> 
> users.

There are about 7,3 billion people out there that don't have a clue what
OpenPGP is.

> I think that until there is a way to verify pgp signatures from
> 
> within gmail, pgp/mime will continue to show up as an attachment.

Why should it? At least for non-Gmail users as well as Gmail users not
using *webmail*.

> There are ways to use pgp/mime or inline pgp with gmail, but nothing
> 
> great.  I'm hopeful for google's end to end, and I currently use
> 
> mailvelope, but as far as I know, neither of those options supports
> 
> PGP/MIME.

Yeah… so? Not all email users are GMail users. Not all GMail users use
the /webmail/ interface. There are a lot of GMail and other /webmail/
users out there but *we really need to stop letting that drag us down*.
Those /webmail/ operators need to get their shit together and start
playing by the rules. It's not our job to do theirs for them.

And until OpenPGP breaks out even of the single digits coverage I really
don't think we should worry about every single use case. Those who care
for OpenPGP can very easily just use something other than webmail.

I just did a test across accounts sending from Thunderbird + Enigmail.
Sure, GMail /webmail/ shows the attachment. In Thunderbird over IMAP the
emails are just fine; "Good signature" and no attachments. Now Google
just needs to go and get their platform up to speed on PGP/MIME.

-- 
Ville



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: Enabling and using ECC keys (any reason not to?)

[Pete Stephenson]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Johan Wevers  wrote:
> On 26-03-2015 9:59, Mike Ingle wrote:
>
>> Is this just a backward
>> compatibility thing, or is the security of ECC keys not fully trusted yet?
>
> The buzz about Dual_EC_DRBG made it clear that it is possible to design
> curves where the designers have access to data that allows them to
> compromise the system. Wether the curves used in a given implementation
> are suspected to possibly have such a weakness is a matter of debate. I
> didn't check the status of this for the curves used in GnuPG 2.1.

Although Dual_EC_DRBG uses elliptic curves, the weakness in that
algorithm lies with the alleged backdoor in Dual_EC_DRBG itself and
not in the mathematics behind elliptic curve crypto in general.

GnuPG 2.1 implements the following curves:
   (1) Curve 25519
   (2) NIST P-256
   (3) NIST P-384
   (4) NIST P-521
   (5) Brainpool P-256
   (6) Brainpool P-384
   (7) Brainpool P-512

People have raised concerns about the NIST curves, but they are part
of the RFC 6637 standard so compliant programs must implement P-256,
may implement P-384, and should implement P-521.

To address potential concerns with the NIST curves, GnuPG also
supports the Brainpool curves which are similar in structure to the
NIST curves but use parameters chosen from nothing-up-my-sleeve
numbers and so should be reasonably trustworthy. Still, the structure
of such curves leaves a bit to be desired (see
http://safecurves.cr.yp.to/ for details, I'm hardly an expert).

Additionally, GnuPG implements the non-standard Curve25519 (but only
for signing at the moment -- encryption will come later after things
have been standardized) which should be safe.

Cheers!
-Pete

-- 
Pete Stephenson

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

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Antony Prince]

On 3/26/2015 1:57 PM, Ville Määttä wrote:
> On 26.03.15 01:38, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
>> On 25/03/15 23:56, Ville Määttä wrote:
 On 26.03.15 00:14, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>> So it's not mailman that's not smart enough, but the mail clients
>> the other recipients are using. Mail clients showing a
>> "signature.asc" attachment probably do not understand PGP/MIME
>> (which isn't that unusual because only a handful mail clients
>> support PGP/MIME out-of-the-box without additional plugins).

 It seems to me that emails sent and signed by Thunderbird +
 Enigmail are displayed just fine by it. No signature.asc quirks.
 But emails sent by others are displaying the attachment in addition
 to the normal Enigmail added UI signature information. Ingo, Doug,
 Samir and Bob; I see the attached file for each of you but not my
 own PGP/MIME mails routed back to me from the list :).
>> The difference must be somewhere else: I use Thunderbird 31.5.0 and
>> Enigmail 1.8 (20150316-1815) and, while it recognizes the signatures,
>> I see the attachment "signature.asc" for all the PGP/MIME signed
>> emails I've checked.
> 
> I sent a signed message to Daniele off list. Signature recognized fine
> and no attachment. So a bug, i.e. the extra attachment, in Enigmail's
> reading of mails that have gone through Mailman even though Mailman
> produced MIME should be valid?
> 

FWIW, I use Thunderbird 31.5.0 and Enigmail 1.8.1 (2015-03-23) and the
signatures verify just fine, but it does show the signature.asc as an
attachment. Viewing my own PGP/MIME mails in the Sent folder does not
show any attachments, but the signature verifies.

-- 

Antony Prince

Key ID: 0x4F040744
Fingerprint: FE96 5B7F A708 18D3 B74B  959F A6E1 6242 4F04 0744
URL: keyserver.blazrsoft.com



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Ville Määttä]

On 26.03.15 01:38, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> On 25/03/15 23:56, Ville Määttä wrote:
>> > On 26.03.15 00:14, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>>> >> So it's not mailman that's not smart enough, but the mail clients
>>> >> the other recipients are using. Mail clients showing a
>>> >> "signature.asc" attachment probably do not understand PGP/MIME
>>> >> (which isn't that unusual because only a handful mail clients
>>> >> support PGP/MIME out-of-the-box without additional plugins).
>> > 
>> > It seems to me that emails sent and signed by Thunderbird +
>> > Enigmail are displayed just fine by it. No signature.asc quirks.
>> > But emails sent by others are displaying the attachment in addition
>> > to the normal Enigmail added UI signature information. Ingo, Doug,
>> > Samir and Bob; I see the attached file for each of you but not my
>> > own PGP/MIME mails routed back to me from the list :).
> The difference must be somewhere else: I use Thunderbird 31.5.0 and
> Enigmail 1.8 (20150316-1815) and, while it recognizes the signatures,
> I see the attachment "signature.asc" for all the PGP/MIME signed
> emails I've checked.

I sent a signed message to Daniele off list. Signature recognized fine
and no attachment. So a bug, i.e. the extra attachment, in Enigmail's
reading of mails that have gone through Mailman even though Mailman
produced MIME should be valid?

-- 
Ville



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: upgrading v1 to v2

[Hugo Osvaldo Barrera]

On 2015-03-26 13:45, Dave Kimble wrote:
> Ubuntu 14.04 with gnupg 1.4.16 installed from Ubuntu repository.
> Enigmail says it is about time I upgraded to gnupg v2.
> Ubuntu Software Centre says I have the latest version.
> 
> I have git cloned gnupg ?v2.0.26? and attempted to configure.
> It says I need libgpg-error, libgcrypt, libassuan, libksba, npth
> 
> I have installed libgpg-error-1.9 , apparently OK.
> I can see /usr/lib/bin/libgpg-error and /libgpg-error-config
> 
> When I try to configure libgcrypt-1.6.3 it says:
> checking for gpg-error-config... /usr/local/bin/gpg-error-config
> checking for GPG Error - version >= 1.11... no
> configure: error: libgpg-error is needed.
> 

IIRC, Ubuntu splits most packages in two, with the binaries in one, and the
headers (needed for building) in another.

I can't recall what the name was exactly, but I do recall it was pretty
non-obvious and confusing.

Anyway, as noted, unless you want 2.1, just get 2.0 from the Ubuntu repos via
apt-get.

> Obviously I am doing something wrong, so its my fault, but this is
> ABSOLUTELY HOPELESS if you want people to adopt gnupg.  I work with
> clients who don't know what an email client is, let alone what theirs is
> called, on a wide variety of OSs.  They cannot possibly do this all
> this.  Is it too much to ask that you produce an Ubuntu-friendly
> repository that takes care of all the dependencies and compiling?
> 
> Rant over, please help.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> ___
> Gnupg-users mailing list
> Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
> http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

-- 
Hugo Osvaldo Barrera
A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right.
Q: Why should I start my reply below the quoted text?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[MFPA]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Thursday 26 March 2015 at 4:17:46 PM, in
,
Brian Minton wrote:



> I think gmail is the single most popular email client,


Gmail is an email service provider, not an email client. They provide
access via a webmail site for those who wish to process their email
using a web browser, as well as by both POP and IMAP, for those who
wish to process their email using an email client.


- --
Best regards

MFPA  

A bird in the hand makes it awfully hard to blow your nose
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=
=+O0d
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[Brian Minton]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 3:49 PM, MFPA
<2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net> wrote:
>
> Gmail is an email service provider, not an email client. They provide
> access via a webmail site for those who wish to process their email
> using a web browser, as well as by both POP and IMAP, for those who
> wish to process their email using an email client.
>

I meant what I said about them gmail being a client.  I agree that they
are also an email service, and it's true that you can access the gmail
mail service with imap, but I don't think it's as popular as their web
interface.  To be fair, I don't have any verifiable sources for that
claim.  But, doing so loses some of the best features of gmail (google
search on your inbox, google chat, conversation view, etc.)  Yes, I
know that lots of email clients have conversation view and search, but
for comparison, searching my ~12GB of mail on Thunderbird takes a lot
longer and is a lot clunkier of an interface than the nearly instant
search using gmail's web interface.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1

iF4EAREIAAYFAlUUZ30ACgkQa46zoGXPuqntbAD7BQusaURejvYPdajyOzR/BrxF
CG+rkTHyh4G9ild9mQkA/i1RmkvW1jLilAzW2wgm9CtFgXdaOV6eTHfWUsAtiwwy
=gmpG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

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

Re: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail

[MFPA]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 3:27:47 AM, in
, Mike Ingle wrote:

> More
> information and downloads at:
> https://www.confidantmail.org

The intro page on your website says "SMTP-compatible address format:
keep your existing email address". Have you checked whether google (or
any other email provider) might have something to say about using
addresses at their email domain name on a completely unrelated
service?

And does the Confidant Mail setup do any sort of challenge/response
over SMTP to check the user controls the email address they are
duplicating as a Confidant Mail address?


- --
Best regards

MFPA  

Versifiers write poems for it.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=
=CZJ0
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail

[Antony Prince]

On 3/26/2015 4:27 PM, MFPA wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> On Tuesday 24 March 2015 at 3:27:47 AM, in
> , Mike Ingle wrote:
> 
>> More
>> information and downloads at:
>> https://www.confidantmail.org
> 
> The intro page on your website says "SMTP-compatible address format:
> keep your existing email address". Have you checked whether google (or
> any other email provider) might have something to say about using
> addresses at their email domain name on a completely unrelated
> service?
> 

From the bit of testing I did with it, it seems the "email address" is
merely used as a user identifier. The domain is irrelevant. You could
use nob...@nonexistent-domain.com and it would still work. The email
address doesn't actually have to exist.

> And does the Confidant Mail setup do any sort of challenge/response
> over SMTP to check the user controls the email address they are
> duplicating as a Confidant Mail address?
> 

I don't think it does since the email address you use is in no way tied
to the actual address. It is linked to the AUTH code generated by the
server during user setup and that's about all. I used this e-mail
address during the server/client setup test and I never received
anything from the Confidant server I set up. From what I gathered
reading through the docs, the Confidant protocol doesn't use domain
names as identifiers, but each user has a specific identifier. The email
address is just a more human readable way of referring to their
identifier on the server. I could be wrong though and I'm sure Mike can
explain it better.

-- 

Antony Prince

Key ID: 0x4F040744
Fingerprint: FE96 5B7F A708 18D3 B74B  959F A6E1 6242 4F04 0744
URL: keyserver.blazrsoft.com



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users

Re: PGP/MIME

[Peter Lebbing]

On 2015-03-26 21:10, Brian Minton wrote:

but
for comparison, searching my ~12GB of mail on Thunderbird takes a lot
longer and is a lot clunkier of an interface than the nearly instant
search using gmail's web interface.


With IMAP, you can run searches on the server as well (I'm assuming 
you're talking about a local search because you mention your client, not 
your server software). A good IMAP server could get you the search 
results quickly. And it can probably avoid searching the attachments; I 
think a lot of that 12 GB is attachments?


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 



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

Re: PGP/MIME (Was: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail)

[MFPA]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Thursday 26 March 2015 at 8:10:08 PM, in
,
Brian Minton wrote:


> I meant what I said about them gmail being a client.

This is only true in the limited sense that they provide a webmail
interface that performs a function equivalent to an email client. (And
yes, I'm being a bit pedantic.)



> But, doing so loses some of
> the best features of gmail (google search on your
> inbox,

I find the search function in my favourite MUA far superior to that in
gmail's web interface.



> google chat,

As far as I'm concerned, the only useful thing in any "Chat" function
is the ability to turn it off. (-:



> conversation view

Which is a pale imitation of the real threading found in decent mail
clients. Unless it has massively improved in the few months since I
last needed to go to the gmail webmail interface because something
they changed had broken the POP access for my gmail account




- --
Best regards

MFPA  

Only dead fish go with the flow
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=
=98JR
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail

[Mike Ingle]

> From the bit of testing I did with it, it seems the "email address" is
> merely used as a user identifier. The domain is irrelevant. You could
> use nob...@nonexistent-domain.com and it would still work. The email
> address doesn't actually have to exist.
>
> I don't think it does since the email address you use is in no way tied
> to the actual address. It is linked to the AUTH code generated by the
> server during user setup and that's about all. I used this e-mail
> address during the server/client setup test and I never received
> anything from the Confidant server I set up. From what I gathered
> reading through the docs, the Confidant protocol doesn't use domain
> names as identifiers, but each user has a specific identifier. The email
> address is just a more human readable way of referring to their
> identifier on the server. I could be wrong though and I'm sure Mike can
> explain it better.

Yes, the email address is just an identifier. The address is used in two
ways. One, it is hashed with SHA1 and used to look up the user's key id.
Two, you can search for a key using DNS, which means take the part of
the email address after @, prepend "cmsvr.", look up the corresponding
TXT record, and use that to find the CM server with the key.

At present, there is no key verification built in and you have to check
the key fingerprint (which is always shown to the right of the address)
or check a signature chain on your key using a GPG key manager.

If you get two keys with the same address, messages will show a key
collision and the automatic lookup will refuse to match. This reduces
the problem of someone making a key matching someone you know and
sending you an email that would otherwise look correct.

In the future, what I want to do is have some basic level of trust
assigned when (a) the key is fetched from a server which is listed in
the TXT record for the domain in the email address of that key and (b)
the server has a commercial SSL certificate for cmsvr.DOMAIN. That would
give some small amount of trust, roughly equivalent to SSL website
trust, to strangers using the system. It should provide
better-than-nothing security to careless people (at least stop passive
monitoring, but not active attacks), and good security to people who
exercise some caution.

>The intro page on your website says "SMTP-compatible address format:
>keep your existing email address". Have you checked whether google (or
>any other email provider) might have something to say about using
>addresses at their email domain name on a completely unrelated
>service?

They very well might, if I was the one making such claims. The claim is
made by whoever created the key, and it is just a claim. It's much like
using a gmail address as your username on a website - purely a shortcut
identifier. Not to be trusted.

>And does the Confidant Mail setup do any sort of challenge/response
>over SMTP to check the user controls the email address they are
>duplicating as a Confidant Mail address?

No. There is no authority in a position to do that. CM can run in a
purely peer-to-peer mode, and bogus keys are currently the biggest
threat to CM security (and to any encrypted email system that does not
have a central authority.) Check the fingerprint. Hopefully CM users
will put their address plus fingerprint on social media profiles,
email sig block, etc. Any hacking would therefore be public.

Mike

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

Re: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail

[Mike Ingle]

At present, there is no key verification built in and
you have to check the key fingerprint (which is always
shown to the right of the address) or check a signature
chain on your key using a GPG key manager.



Or you can Trust On First Use, if it suits your threat model.

  
That's more or less what it does. When you get an email from 
j...@somewhere.com, it fetches that key id and adds it to your keyring. 
If you get an email from a different key claiming j...@somewhere.com, it 
also fetches that key id and adds it, but now messages from both users 
show a key collision until you go delete one of those keys. Likewise, 
while you have a key collision, you cannot email that user by typing his 
email address. You have to type or click the key id. In that way it 
forces you to deal with it when and if you get a collision.



 MFPA>>The intro page on your website says "SMTP-compatible
 >>address format: keep your existing email address".
 >>Have you checked whether google (or any other email
 >>provider) might have something to say about using
 >>addresses at their email domain name on a completely
 >>unrelated service?

  

They very well might, if I was the one making such
claims. The claim is made by whoever created the key,
and it is just a claim.



You are the one stating that the user can keep their existing SMTP
email address to use on CM. Given that you do not have a process in
place to verify the user's SMTP email address, I think that is a
pretty bold statement.
  
Think I should rephrase that like, "SMTP-style addresses can be used to 
look up keys"?
It is true that people can always keep and use their existing address, 
but others can potentially

generate fake keys for that address.

Any thoughts on the possible outcomes when a high-profile
politician/celebrity/company with deep pockets finds they are unable
to effectively use their SMTP email address on CM due to messages
showing a key collision and the automatic lookup refusing to match
because somebody got the address first? Maybe nothing, but worthy of
consideration.

  
The celebrity will not be blocked because there is no central key 
directory. It's possible some impostor will start using a celebrity's 
email address on CM. Then when the real celebrity wants to use it, he 
will tweet "My real CM key id is (some hash), please ignore those 
impostors" and hopefully that will resolve it. It's similar to regular 
PGP keyservers in that it will accept any key someone wants to post. The 
main difference is keys expire after a month or so if they are not 
re-posted.


The only person who will see a key collision is one who previously 
received a message from the impostor.


Yes I am worried about the bogus keys problem. Just not sure how to 
handle it in a peer to peer system. For business use I like the SSL 
approach.


  

It's much like using a gmail
address as your username on a website - purely a
shortcut identifier. Not to be trusted.



I have used websites and services where usernames are email addresses,
but not without some form of challenge/response. (Click the link in
the email, reply to the email, enter the code that was in the
encrypted email, etc.)
  
That is a good idea and if I build a commercial provider I will probably 
implement that. Anyone can run a provider and I expect them to range 
from strictly business to the dodgy darknet variety.


Mike

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

Re: One alternative to SMTP for email: Confidant Mail

[MFPA]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512

Hi


On Thursday 26 March 2015 at 9:26:35 PM, in
, Mike Ingle wrote:



> Yes, the email address is just an identifier. The
> address is used in two ways. One, it is hashed with
> SHA1 and used to look up the user's key id.

I'm in favour of hashing email addresses in key UIDs.



> At present, there is no key verification built in and
> you have to check the key fingerprint (which is always
> shown to the right of the address) or check a signature
> chain on your key using a GPG key manager.

Or you can Trust On First Use, if it suits your threat model.


 MFPA>>The intro page on your website says "SMTP-compatible
 >>address format: keep your existing email address".
 >>Have you checked whether google (or any other email
 >>provider) might have something to say about using
 >>addresses at their email domain name on a completely
 >>unrelated service?

> They very well might, if I was the one making such
> claims. The claim is made by whoever created the key,
> and it is just a claim.

You are the one stating that the user can keep their existing SMTP
email address to use on CM. Given that you do not have a process in
place to verify the user's SMTP email address, I think that is a
pretty bold statement.

Any thoughts on the possible outcomes when a high-profile
politician/celebrity/company with deep pockets finds they are unable
to effectively use their SMTP email address on CM due to messages
showing a key collision and the automatic lookup refusing to match
because somebody got the address first? Maybe nothing, but worthy of
consideration.



> It's much like using a gmail
> address as your username on a website - purely a
> shortcut identifier. Not to be trusted.

I have used websites and services where usernames are email addresses,
but not without some form of challenge/response. (Click the link in
the email, reply to the email, enter the code that was in the
encrypted email, etc.)


- --
Best regards

MFPA  

Change is inevitable except from a vending machine
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=
=AFs/
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


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

Re: upgrading v1 to v2

[Dave Kimble]

It seems I've been replying to individuals rather than the list, sorry.

Thanks to all who helped sort me out.

I have been back over the website, trying to find the point where I got on the 
wrong track.
I think it is down to https://gnupg.org/download which has the GnuPG Binary 
Releases section AFTER the Source Code Releases.

Since I know how to build from sources (notwithstanding my stuff ups), I just 
clicked on stable source download and never got to see the bit at the bottom.
Perhaps those sections could be reversed, to save you from idiots wasting your 
time.

The link for Debian isn't very helpful. Linking to Debian GnuPG Maintainers 
would be better:
https://qa.debian.org/developer.php/login=pkg-gnupg-ma...@lists.alioth.debian.org
that's where you get to see "gnupg" and "gnupg2", without which you are going 
to be baffled.

Dave



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