issue was resolved.
Very much appreciated Peter!
Thanks,
Paul Taukatch
Advanced Technologies Team / zOS Cloud Crypto
From: Peter Lebbing
To: Paul Taukatch/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Date: 04/26/2017 06:24 AM
Subject:Re: GPG Signature Verification
On 24/04
On 24/04/17 19:23, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> The part of "cmp" that would correspond to the constant part of the DER
> encoding I do not recognise.
It is still proper ASN.1, but it encodes a slightly different structure.
I wondered whether it was DER encoded or BER encoded, because I read
that BER
On 20/04/17 21:17, Paul Taukatch wrote:
> Does anyone know exactly what this verify data is comprised of?
"data" seems to be correct: it is an EMSA-PKCS1-v1_5 encoded RSA SHA-256
signature. As RFC 3447 states:
EM = 0x00 || 0x01 || PS || 0x00 || T.
PS is a string of binary 1's to fill up the rema
h
Advanced Technologies Team / zOS Cloud Crypto
From: Kristian Fiskerstrand
To: Paul Taukatch/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS, gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Date: 04/21/2017 06:29 AM
Subject: Re: GPG Signature Verification
On 04/21/2017 09:16 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 04/20/
On 04/21/2017 09:16 AM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
> On 04/20/2017 09:17 PM, Paul Taukatch wrote:
>> I've attached my public key and debug log but please let me know if there
>> is any other information that might be helpful.
>
> The first reference that springs to mind is [RFC4880] Section 5.2.
On 04/20/2017 09:17 PM, Paul Taukatch wrote:
> I've attached my public key and debug log but please let me know if there
> is any other information that might be helpful.
The first reference that springs to mind is [RFC4880] Section 5.2.4.
Computing Signatures
References:
[RFC4880]
https://tools.
Hello and thank you for taking the time to help out!
I am developing my own implementation of the PGP specification and have a
question regarding the signature generation/verification for Transferable
Public Keys that maybe one of you could help shed some light on. Currently
I create a single pr
> You're getting Bad signature because gpg can't
> find the key.
I've imported the key manually, and the result is still the same (Bad
signature). GPGol has no problem verifying signature over that same
message in the same Outlook window.
> And it can't find it because the keyserver helper
> prog
>> Interestingly, with GPGol both signatures verified correctly!
>
>It uses MIME parser code I wrote and thus there is
>some chance that it actually worked ;-)
Yes it worked! :-)
>> While attempts to use GPG4Win directly (open
>> the email piece and run GPG4Win on the Current
>> Window) fail wit
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 22:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Interestingly, with GPGol both signatures verified correctly!
It uses MIME parser code I wrote and thus tehre is some chance that it
actually worked ;-)
> While attempts to use GPG4Win directly (open the email piece and
> run GPG4Win on the Cu
Blumenthal, Uri wrote:
> Interestingly, with GPGol both signatures verified correctly!
>
> While attempts to use GPG4Win directly (open the email piece and
> run GPG4Win on the Current Window) fail with "BAD signature".
>
> And GPG4Win crashes at the attempt to retrieve a key from the
> remote ke
Blumenthal, Uri wrote the following on 4/18/07 8:14 PM:
>> I have verified the e-mail (sent by Robert), twice: in the
>> original message from Robert, and in Robert's quoted message
>> in Uri's e-mail. Good signature.
>
> That's a convincing proof.
>
>>> The base 64 encoding of the signature is b
HTTP proxy).
Thank you!
--
Regards,
Uri Blumenthal
-Original Message-
From: Charly Avital [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 4:56 PM
To: gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Subject: Re: GPG signature verification problem?
Blumenthal, Uri wrote the following on 4/18/07 8:14 PM:
Blumenthal, Uri wrote the following on 4/18/07 11:59 PM:
> Interestingly, with GPGol both signatures verified correctly!
>
> While attempts to use GPG4Win directly (open the email piece and
> run GPG4Win on the Current Window) fail with "BAD signature".
>
> And GPG4Win crashes at the attempt to r
Blumenthal, Uri wrote the following on 4/18/07 8:14 PM:
>> I have verified the e-mail (sent by Robert), twice: in the
>> original message from Robert, and in Robert's quoted message
>> in Uri's e-mail. Good signature.
>
> That's a convincing proof.
>
>>> The base 64 encoding of the signature is b
> I have verified the e-mail (sent by Robert), twice: in the
> original message from Robert, and in Robert's quoted message
> in Uri's e-mail. Good signature.
That's a convincing proof.
>> The base 64 encoding of the signature is broken.
> Uri: do you get blank spaces in Robert's signature?
Not
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Werner Koch wrote the following on 4/18/07 6:50 PM:
> On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>
>> Verification fails, with the following error message. I'm using
>> GPG-v.1.4.7, and Thunderbird/Enigmail.
>
> That seems to be TB problem.
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 17:20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Verification fails, with the following error message. I'm using
> GPG-v.1.4.7, and Thunderbird/Enigmail.
That seems to be TB problem. I have no problems to verify the mail.
> --charset utf8 --batch --no-tty --status-fd 2 -d,gpg: invalid radi
I've tried to verify signature of the email that arrived from gnupg
mailing list (sent by Ryan).
Verification fails, with the following error message. I'm using
GPG-v.1.4.7, and Thunderbird/Enigmail.
Could somebody with a clue explain me what's wrong, and whether it's a
problem with my config (an
19 matches
Mail list logo
