GnuPG 2.1: New file formats

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

GnuPG 2.1: New file formats

Marco หงุ่ยตระกูล-Schulze
Hello everyone,

today, I stumbled over GnuPG 2.1 using a new secret-key-file-format: Instead
of ~/.gnupg/secring.gpg a new directory ~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/ with each
key being in a separate file is used.

I thus created this issue: https://github.com/subshare/subshare/issues/49

Since I'm going to be the one to work on this issue ;-) I did a bit more
research and found this:

http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34212230/using-bouncycastle-with-gnupg-2-1s-pubring-kbx-file

GnuPG 2.1 obviously did not only change the secret-key-file-format, but also
the public-key-file-format. This only didn't become visible on my system, yet,
because GnuPG 2.1 continues using the old file in a compatibility-mode, if the
old ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg already exists (i.e. it does not migrate it like it did with my secret keys).

My question is now: Does BouncyCastle already support reading+writing the new
file formats? If yes, since which version? If no, is it already planned to
implement it?

Cheers, Marco :-)



signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: GnuPG 2.1: New file formats

David Hook-3

It's on our list - but no idea at the moment as to when.

Regards,

David

On 29/03/17 21:41, Marco หงุ่ยตระกูล [Nguitragool] wrote:

> Hello everyone,
>
> today, I stumbled over GnuPG 2.1 using a new secret-key-file-format: Instead
> of ~/.gnupg/secring.gpg a new directory ~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/ with each
> key being in a separate file is used.
>
> I thus created this issue: https://github.com/subshare/subshare/issues/49
>
> Since I'm going to be the one to work on this issue ;-) I did a bit more
> research and found this:
>
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34212230/using-bouncycastle-with-gnupg-2-1s-pubring-kbx-file
>
> GnuPG 2.1 obviously did not only change the secret-key-file-format, but also
> the public-key-file-format. This only didn't become visible on my system, yet,
> because GnuPG 2.1 continues using the old file in a compatibility-mode, if the
> old ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg already exists (i.e. it does not migrate it like it did with my secret keys).
>
> My question is now: Does BouncyCastle already support reading+writing the new
> file formats? If yes, since which version? If no, is it already planned to
> implement it?
>
> Cheers, Marco :-)
>
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: GnuPG 2.1: New file formats

Marco หงุ่ยตระกูล-Schulze
Hi David,

thanks a lot for the quick response!

I'm happy that it's on the list, already! I hope it won't be too
long, because GnuPG 2.x is becoming more and more widely used.

Best regards, Marco :-)


Am 30.03.2017 um 01:49 schrieb David Hook:

> It's on our list - but no idea at the moment as to when.
>
> Regards,
>
> David
>
> On 29/03/17 21:41, Marco หงุ่ยตระกูล [Nguitragool] wrote:
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> today, I stumbled over GnuPG 2.1 using a new secret-key-file-format: Instead
>> of ~/.gnupg/secring.gpg a new directory ~/.gnupg/private-keys-v1.d/ with each
>> key being in a separate file is used.
>>
>> I thus created this issue: https://github.com/subshare/subshare/issues/49
>>
>> Since I'm going to be the one to work on this issue ;-) I did a bit more
>> research and found this:
>>
>> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/34212230/using-bouncycastle-with-gnupg-2-1s-pubring-kbx-file
>>
>> GnuPG 2.1 obviously did not only change the secret-key-file-format, but also
>> the public-key-file-format. This only didn't become visible on my system, yet,
>> because GnuPG 2.1 continues using the old file in a compatibility-mode, if the
>> old ~/.gnupg/pubring.gpg already exists (i.e. it does not migrate it like it
>> did with my secret keys).
>>
>> My question is now: Does BouncyCastle already support reading+writing the new
>> file formats? If yes, since which version? If no, is it already planned to
>> implement it?
>>
>> Cheers, Marco :-)




signature.asc (845 bytes) Download Attachment
Loading...