-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Mailman-Developers] GSoC Updates Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2013 19:44:43 +0530 From: Abhilash Raj <raj.abhilash1@gmail.com> To: Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@xemacs.org>
Thanks for the replies, I tried working on it and it was good enough to be used for now. Thanks Steve for trying it yourself.
I have another few set of question now as I move towards signing and a few answers to it also(which may be wrong please correct me).
- How do list owner create keys? What parameters? Which address?
I think I will write a small doc on how to create key via command line in linux using gnupg and copy paste the ascii armoured text to postorious ui(which will be created soon). About the address I think owner can create a key using posting address with a min key length of 1024? or else mailman rejects the key? MD5 hash should be discouraged and at least SHA1 should be used?(although I found this1 that even sha1 should not be used)
- RSA or DSA keys?
DSA can only be used for signing but is faster than RSA, although for now our scope is limited to signing later on we "will" add encryption so I think we should stick to RSA?
- How to manage paraphrase(or passwords) for keys?
In previous discussions we decided to use gnupg-agent and I although I haven't tried it. Any other suggestions to it?
Also one more thing while running tests i noticed many other tests are breaking as initially a simple message could pass though "default-posting-chain" but now we need a multipart/signed message. So should I worry about changing all other tests?
Abhilash Raj
On Wednesday 14 August 2013 02:05 PM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Abhilash Raj writes:
After midterm evaluations I have been working on signing the message using one the keys associated with the list, now since
python-gnupgdoes not allow selecting keys with key credentials( like address or list-name name)Have you tried this? In the GPG documentation, "key ID" often actually means any of the above.1 If python-gnupg simply passes its argument to the gpg process, it should Just Work. Anyway, it seems to work for me (some output edited for clarity):
venv27 abhilash 15:39$ python2.7 Python 2.7.5 (default, Aug 1 2013, 23:58:20) [GCC 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5666) (dot 3)] on darwin Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. No entry for terminal type "emacs"; using dumb terminal settings.
from gnupg import GPG gpg = GPG(gnupghome='/Users/steve/.gnupg',keyring='test-pub',secret_keyring='test-sec') gpg.list_keys() [{'dummy': u'', 'keyid': u'17A810C33BDFEFA8', 'expires': u'', 'subkeys': [[u'2C376F1897FD6C1C', u'e']], 'length': u'2048', 'ownertrust': u'u', 'algo': u'1', 'fingerprint': u'A36D6B345C18B02E695B8B7917A810C33BDFEFA8', 'date': u'1376462161', 'trust': u'-', 'type': u'pub', 'uids': [u'GPG Test User <gpg-tester@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp>']}, {'dummy': u'', 'keyid': u'87EBCC0B6DF8B373', 'expires': u'', 'subkeys': [[u'18E03AE36F3B6DAD', u'e']], 'length': u'1024', 'ownertrust': u'-', 'algo': u'17', 'fingerprint': u'A9FC56DBD48F5E5B61B7137487EBCC0B6DF8B373', 'date': u'1183228371', 'trust': u'-', 'type': u'pub', 'uids': [u'Stephen J. Turnbull (XEmacs Reviewer) <stephen@xemacs.org>']}] crypted = gpg.encrypt(u'A bit of random text.', u'stephen@xemacs.org', always_trust=True) str(crypted) '-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (Darwin)
hQIOAxjgOuNvO22tEAgAgPUFFCFDKe8zSWt42IG7LkLWWbbTCiAsO7aM2pEgtFrI KxRklwvEOX7bj5cYbmGr1PeM2IH58T4gMMHsYuOUyNzxS1mbsXZ9C4rpE0QJSkPY +5Z10dpHEyAZ030g6uBeubFHC+78as1s10UP16zlVgs2AeZwfM88OBocs7FmUdZr X5uAUxpB5RGET/zc2uHvBzIigXTzUrS8LrTtPfhyP8jCia6klX/2+2Q3gPlENoaP PkIx/vZ7aKCIKyoP+pbLlwGAb/CX1WoQgyrsNFApg/HJhZ3ZLYKcvIqO3PNejOcN 8ZYLRV4Uz0tLCuALCccw+XEZSQTKBoemXqVUwSKCAAf+OiHpMqDMoO7ReVVZg841 MnRcZzfUnL8mj1FZwnr3iTcQ7BdUbu5vMAjn0SIlBISquu0rZi+wynGwgSpWnJeF Llh+gjizNuHUxtO96phbwMeyVrD1yKSxkxC9cY0r8NBo/MTwUmyMCHNKpj0qrome GZI2ekhYjLWfAbX3c6dwBx7pQhwkHkgMmoY6yN0OpLf1urnHGpv+AsEwDmWZ8mz3 CLtD/l9eMl4LGIHNSV7yQ4lAzhYMenNdxkYJyKtxEvM1BFdqOblRb/h+B3X/xtT/ 6ATAK1mZz1nU4H2EB1EvS4rbbQJ6oIevQSz3r/G6jSI7PqPDJvhnzQBrN7wh1pep ldJQASeq3bCushTnFolWVxOgswXm2VFMPnhqEVxBJrZ12nZO2LGN7Y2/W+qQ/Qqb DdYqbYOXNFW9r9p7ugJKKD1kK3XUkTC0Y+t1I/a7dLJBvpA= =olXg -----END PGP MESSAGE----- '
of = open ('/tmp/cryptfile', 'w') of.write(str(crypted)) of.close() signed = gpg.sign('A bit of random text.', passphrase=u'Not useful without my keyring.', keyid=u'gpg-tester@turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp') str(signed) '-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
A bit of random text. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (Darwin)
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJSCz30AAoJEBeoEMM73++oWGcH/jS3AJ6OZLm8JHiLAI0AzCXe muRVhPPfGrqL/Jr+l9WA8Zj3pClHa04H0ha3nvYFHPhN30lFDDw56iCPMA+DbJbr 2BeqUSfJj36EGHOi8yV5iljZA4NhAw9qqhwQz7kas+KTeY8+98DQDS10ixVZ92Gv NDxQCKcyTj+6leqy3ePRAgXP5DouTGXntupzPQzcbQW6L8X6h6STOiLAAGKXpGJm t4Fruvbb3kAcqDGCp5Y9kLrxd1unlCp9leoeJeG5NZ5IcI2B4qUwqKdydu9ZMJxS kJYJR1ZNVMtQh/kMNA87GMNv4nd8d5QPD+bm5b4L5BDlibzMGb5Q80mJAKD5xqo= =qHjE -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- '
Decryption of the encrypted file works. I didn't verify the signature, but it looks like it's working.
Also I understand that keeping key safe is one of the important tasks but for the time-being I am simply adding the public and secret keyrings in "VAR_DIR/gpg/", all the list's private keys are in
secring.gpgand all the list's public keys are inpubring.gpgand all the user's public keys are inuserring.gpg. It will be changed to keep the secret keys at a more safer location.I agree with Richard that there's no particular reason to do anything but put the public keys on one ring.
I don't see any point in putting the private keys somewhere else. As I wrote elsewhere, the weak point in the private keys is the need to supply a password, not the location of the file containing the key. I wonder if there may not be a way to do this using agent forwarding so that the private keys are kept on a different host.
The only issue I can see is that *if* at some point it becomes feasible to use agent forwarding, I suspect only one agent can be used per GPG subprocess.
Footnotes: 1 Has anybody else noticed that both gpg's UI and its documentation seem designed to make it as hard to use as possible?