 keys today and everything went fine for a couple of them until I got the error.
Thanks for the report, I'll look into it.
But now I realized my instructions were insufficient. So, next time you see this happen please send me the output of ls -lA --full-time ~/.gnupg/ and a WhisperBack report, both generated immediately after the problem is identified, during the same session, and before doing anything else with GnuPG.
The WhisperBack bug report you've sent me was truncated. Do you still have access to the full one?
I just resent it. I thought I had fixed for ever this thunderbird wrapping issue...
Tell me if it's enough or if I should re-produce this to get the full output of the commandline.
There's one interesting thing in this bug report: seahorse[17583]: imported key but then couldn't find it in keyring: [erased fingerprint]. This comes either from https://sources.debian.org/src/libcryptui/3.12.2-5/daemon/seahorse-gpgme-source.c/?hl=837#L837 or from https://sources.debian.org/src/seahorse/3.20.0-4/pgp/seahorse-gpgme-keyring.c/?hl=601#L601, most likely the latter as strings can find this error message in /usr/bin/seahorse but not in the libcryptui binary library. Sadly, it does not tell me much apart of confirming what we already knew (pubring.kbx is mostly empty).
Thanks, I think that's enough for now.
"from desktop" means "by right-clicking on the key file on the desktop and clicking 'Import Key' or whatever it's called"
"from keyservers" means "by starting 'Passwords and Keys' and from there fetching the key from keyservers"?
Also, do you ever use Enigmail to manage keys?
Finally, I'd like to find out if the bug is in Seahorse (or the libraries it uses to communicate with GnuPG) or in GnuPG itself. Could you please stop using Seahorse and Enigmail to import keys for a while, and instead always use gpg on the command-line (gpg --import FILE, gpg --recv-keys FINGERPRINT), or is it too much to ask?
No I can try that. But it might takes some time before I need to do it.
Cool, thanks! So I'm leaving this on your plate because the next action is yours.
So I just fetched 7 keys from keyservers using gpg as asked above, and didn't get any error. Everything is still in seahorse.
But as this error isn't appearing consistenly I don't know how we should consider this test?
I think we'll need more long term data before we can draw any conclusion. So please keep using gpg for a few weeks and then we'll see.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=868550#50 reports something similar.
Assuming that output is complete and unredacted (please ask the user about this), from the 7 keys we're supposed to import in source:config/chroot_local-includes/lib/live/config/2000-import-gnupg-key, only the first two ones are listed.
If you have the original full bug report, I need it to see if it has anything to do with https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=868550#50.
Searching the web for "keydb_get_keyblock failed: Invalid keyring" shows lots of potentially related issues. At least one of them was fixed in GnuPG 2.1.20 but Stretch has 2.1.18 (+ a bunch of patches) so it might be that Tails 4.0 will fix that for free.
Hey! We're in a meeting with Cody and we were wondering if there was anything we could do as technical writers to help these people. Any idea?
Nope, you've sent me a truncated one.
I suspect https://dev.gnupg.org/rGb375d50ee4ce52c9b0f0855ec155be027642fb05 (in upstream 2.2.5 and newer) fixes the problem.
On top of what I've asked goupille, I've asked the user to send me more info. Once I have it I can test my hypothesis.
Next steps: forward bug reports & debugging info to hefee and reassign to them.
the imported key has one feature that triggers the issue.
-> can someone send an fingerprint on the Keyserver, that triggered the issue?
With that we hopefully can locate the issue to either GnuPG, the used libs or seahorse.
https://dev.gnupg.org/rGb375d50ee4ce52c9b0f0855ec155be027642fb05 may help to work on with a broken pubkey by lowering the log category from error to info. But this does not solve the root of the issue, why we have this broken pubkey.
a migration issue between gnupg2 and gnupg. I saw it serveral times, that gpg related tools do not handle GnuPG 2 files correctly and do wired things with the old GnuPG 1 files or vise versa.
Agreed, that's a plausible explanation.
gpg points to gpg2 on Stretch so I think that the output I've sent you is exactly what you're asking.
Good idea. In order to ask this extra info to the OP, I think you'll need to help them a bit by telling them which exact key/fingerprint you're interested into.
Save the key you wanted to import / write down the fingerprint.
Is Seahorse broken?
Report back from this experiment via WhisperBack. If you add the key/fingerprint you have imported, than we may reproduce the issue on ourselves.
i don't have inpurt - so nothing to fix.
As discussed at the FT meeting today, this input must be requested from the user who reported the bug and provided debug info. hefee will try to find their email address and if that does not work, I will.
Okay I found the e-mail addresses, but I dislike to send a response from my personal emailadresse. Is there a solution to send those responses from a tails related emailadress?
Replied in the other place where you asked the same question.
mail is finally sent to reporter to ask for more details.
Lets postpone, as we wait for input from user.
As I'm waiting for new input - I don't know, when I'll come back to that issue. And it doesn't looks like FT will do own research on that issue. As it is still assigned to me I'll readd it to Core work if we get input again. I just wants to keep the FT Core work view clean.
I think the idea of the "Blocking" relationship is to not forget that this was budgeted for Core work and allow others in the project to see which things are taken care of. If you take it out of the view, everyone else loses track of it.
You're right that we won't research nor fix this bug ourselves. The best outcome we can expect here at this point is: enough info to reproduce the bug and report it to Debian or upstream. I'm adjusting "Type of work" to better reflect what's the expectation at this point.
Ulrike is correct: keeping this on the FT view is useful for the reasons she mentioned… and also 1. so that you can bill your work; 2. to make the expectations clear here (this is paid work, not volunteer work, and it comes with different expectations).
You've asked info to the user 2 months ago. It makes little sense to wait indefinitely so please ping them once, and then if they don't reply within a month or so, reject this ticket as "not enough info for us to do anything about it". Pinging & keeping track of replies is part of the communication work here; this does not happen magically for free, it's FT work, hence I've re-added the blocking relationship.
I'll pinged the person again. Let's wait till end of March (end of QI) and than reject this issue.
In a year we never managed to get enough debugging info to report this upstream.In the majority of cases, standard due diligence is the level of due diligence that will be used. These are generally situations where there is a potential risk but it is unlikely that these risks will be realised.
Standard due diligence requires you to identify your customer as well as verify their identity. In addition, there is a requirement to gather information to enable you to understand the nature of the business relationship. This due diligence should provide you with confidence that that you know who your customer is and that your service or product is not being used as a tool to launder money or any other criminal activity.
As with simplified due diligence there is a requirement to monitor your client and the relationship, this will highlight any potential trigger events that may result in further due diligence being required.Papakura Netball Centre are pleased to announce the appointment of Heather Te Rure to the position of General Manager.
Heather brings a range of skills which will be invaluable as Papakura