Mailing List Archive: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3

NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3

Nov 21, 2023, 3:05 AM

Post #1 of 4 (153 views)

I just noticed a difference on how NO_SECKEY status is used between
2.2.x and 2.3.3.

When I do --decrypt on an encrypted email message (having only
recipient's private+public key in the keyring):
- v2.2 outputs one NO_SECKEY line referring the recipient's key
- v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and
sender's keys.

Is this expected behavior change?

--
Aleksander Machniak
Kolab Groupware Developer [https://kolab.org]
Roundcube Webmail Developer [https://roundcube.net]
----------------------------------------------------
PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com

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

Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3 [ In reply to ]

kloecker at kde

Nov 21, 2023, 5:59 AM

Post #2 of 4 (153 views)

Permalink

On Dienstag, 21. November 2023 12:05:39 CET Aleksander Machniak wrote:
> I just noticed a difference on how NO_SECKEY status is used between
> 2.2.x and 2.3.3.
>
> When I do --decrypt on an encrypted email message (having only
> recipient's private+public key in the keyring):
> - v2.2 outputs one NO_SECKEY line referring the recipient's key

Referring to the recipient's key? I understood that you do have the
recipient's key but that you lack the sender's key.

> - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and
> sender's keys.
>
> Is this expected behavior change?

Maybe not, but 2.3.3 is more than 2 years old. Current is 2.4.3.

Regards,
Ingo

Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3 [ In reply to ]

alec at alec

Nov 21, 2023, 6:28 AM

Post #3 of 4 (153 views)

Permalink

On 21.11.2023 14:59, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>> When I do --decrypt on an encrypted email message (having only
>> recipient's private+public key in the keyring):
>> - v2.2 outputs one NO_SECKEY line referring the recipient's key
>
> Referring to the recipient's key? I understood that you do have the
> recipient's key but that you lack the sender's key.

Yes, that's right. I don't need a sender's key to decrypt a message.

>> - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and
>> sender's keys.
>>
>> Is this expected behavior change?
>
> Maybe not, but 2.3.3 is more than 2 years old. Current is 2.4.3.

That's what I have on Alma Linux 9 by default. I'll take a look for an
update.

--
Aleksander Machniak
Kolab Groupware Developer [https://kolab.org]
Roundcube Webmail Developer [https://roundcube.net]
----------------------------------------------------
PGP: 19359DC1 # Blog: https://kolabian.wordpress.com

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

Re: NO_SECKEY difference between 2.2 and 2.3 [ In reply to ]

bernhard at intevation

Nov 22, 2023, 12:18 AM

Post #4 of 4 (153 views)

Permalink

Am Dienstag 21 November 2023 15:28:46 schrieb Aleksander Machniak:
> >> - v2.3 outputs two NO_SECKEY lines referring both recipient's and
> >> sender's keys.

Potentially the sender has encrypted the message for themselves, this would
explain why there are two potential decryption keys that you both do not
have. Try an additional -v to see more about the message structure.

Maybe v2.3 is just more informative here.

--
https://intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer: Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter

Mailing List Archive

Attached Files:

Attached Files: