GnuPG 2.2.17 released
| From: | Werner Koch <wk-AT-gnupg.org> | |
| To: | gnupg-announce-AT-gnupg.org | |
| Subject: | GnuPG 2.2.17 released to mitigate attacks on keyservers | |
| Date: | Tue, 09 Jul 2019 17:15:58 +0200 | |
| Message-ID: | <87ftnfi6hd.fsf@wheatstone.g10code.de> | |
| Cc: | info-gnu-AT-gnu.org | |
| Archive-link: | Article |
Hello!
We are pleased to announce the availability of a new GnuPG release:
version 2.2.17. This is maintenance release to mitigate the effects of
the denial-of-service attacks on the keyserver network. See below for a
list changes.
About GnuPG
===========
The GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG, GPG) is a complete and free implementation
of the OpenPGP and S/MIME standards.
GnuPG allows to encrypt and sign data and communication, features a
versatile key management system as well as access modules for public key
directories. GnuPG itself is a command line tool with features for easy
integration with other applications. The separate library GPGME provides
a uniform API to use the GnuPG engine by software written in common
programming languages. A wealth of frontend applications and libraries
making use of GnuPG are available. As an universal crypto engine GnuPG
provides support for S/MIME and Secure Shell in addition to OpenPGP.
GnuPG is Free Software (meaning that it respects your freedom). It can
be freely used, modified and distributed under the terms of the GNU
General Public License.
Noteworthy changes in version 2.2.17
====================================
* gpg: Ignore all key-signatures received from keyservers. This
change is required to mitigate a DoS due to keys flooded with
faked key-signatures. The old behaviour can be achieved by adding
keyserver-options no-self-sigs-only,no-import-clean
to your gpg.conf. [#4607]
* gpg: If an imported keyblocks is too large to be stored in the
keybox (pubring.kbx) do not error out but fallback to an import
using the options "self-sigs-only,import-clean". [#4591]
* gpg: New command --locate-external-key which can be used to
refresh keys from the Web Key Directory or via other methods
configured with --auto-key-locate.
* gpg: New import option "self-sigs-only".
* gpg: In --auto-key-retrieve prefer WKD over keyservers. [#4595]
* dirmngr: Support the "openpgpkey" subdomain feature from
draft-koch-openpgp-webkey-service-07. [#4590].
* dirmngr: Add an exception for the "openpgpkey" subdomain to the
CSRF protection. [#4603]
* dirmngr: Fix endless loop due to http errors 503 and 504. [#4600]
* dirmngr: Fix TLS bug during redirection of HKP requests. [#4566]
* gpgconf: Fix a race condition when killing components. [#4577]
Release-info: https://dev.gnupg.org/T4606
Getting the Software
====================
Please follow the instructions found at <https://gnupg.org/download/> or
read on:
GnuPG 2.2.17 may be downloaded from one of the GnuPG mirror sites or
direct from its primary FTP server. The list of mirrors can be found at
<https://gnupg.org/download/mirrors.html>. Note that GnuPG is not
available at ftp.gnu.org.
The GnuPG source code compressed using BZIP2 and its OpenPGP signature
are available here:
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gnupg/gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2 (6560k)
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/gnupg/gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2.sig
An installer for Windows without any graphical frontend except for a
very minimal Pinentry tool is available here:
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/binary/gnupg-w32-2.2.17_2019... (4185k)
https://gnupg.org/ftp/gcrypt/binary/gnupg-w32-2.2.17_2019...
The source used to build the Windows installer can be found in the same
directory with a ".tar.xz" suffix.
A new version of Gpg4win incluing this version of GnuPG will be released
in a few days.
Checking the Integrity
======================
In order to check that the version of GnuPG which you are going to
install is an original and unmodified one, you can do it in one of
the following ways:
* If you already have a version of GnuPG installed, you can simply
verify the supplied signature. For example to verify the signature
of the file gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2 you would use this command:
gpg --verify gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2.sig gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2
This checks whether the signature file matches the source file.
You should see a message indicating that the signature is good and
made by one or more of the release signing keys. Make sure that
this is a valid key, either by matching the shown fingerprint
against a trustworthy list of valid release signing keys or by
checking that the key has been signed by trustworthy other keys.
See the end of this mail for information on the signing keys.
* If you are not able to use an existing version of GnuPG, you have
to verify the SHA-1 checksum. On Unix systems the command to do
this is either "sha1sum" or "shasum". Assuming you downloaded the
file gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2, you run the command like this:
sha1sum gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2
and check that the output matches the next line:
12c1cee8871c03f0315fc8f27876364b75c95b12 gnupg-2.2.17.tar.bz2
533deef5939fcd6506be650731dea4a9d18f9df8 gnupg-w32-2.2.17_20190709.tar.xz
82abfbc79d1a99b27f25ba92fe878cad07a31532 gnupg-w32-2.2.17_20190709.exe
Internationalization
====================
This version of GnuPG has support for 26 languages with Chinese
(traditional and simplified), Czech, French, German, Japanese,
Norwegian, Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian being almost completely
translated.
Documentation and Support
=========================
If you used GnuPG in the past you should read the description of
changes and new features at doc/whats-new-in-2.1.txt or online at
https://gnupg.org/faq/whats-new-in-2.1.html
The file gnupg.info has the complete reference manual of the system.
Separate man pages are included as well but they miss some of the
details available only in thee manual. The manual is also available
online at
https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg/
or can be downloaded as PDF at
https://gnupg.org/documentation/manuals/gnupg.pdf .
You may also want to search the GnuPG mailing list archives or ask on
the gnupg-users mailing list for advise on how to solve problems. Most
of the new features are around for several years and thus enough public
experience is available. https://wiki.gnupg.org has user contributed
information around GnuPG and relate software.
In case of build problems specific to this release please first check
https://dev.gnupg.org/T4509 for updated information.
Please consult the archive of the gnupg-users mailing list before
reporting a bug: <https://gnupg.org/documentation/mailing-lists.html>.
We suggest to send bug reports for a new release to this list in favor
of filing a bug at <https://bugs.gnupg.org>. If you need commercial
support check out <https://gnupg.org/service.html>.
If you are a developer and you need a certain feature for your project,
please do not hesitate to bring it to the gnupg-devel mailing list for
discussion.
Thanks
======
Maintenance and development of GnuPG is mostly financed by donations.
The GnuPG project currently employs two full-time developers and one
contractor. They all work exclusively on GnuPG and closely related
software like Libgcrypt, GPGME and Gpg4win.
We have to thank all the people who helped the GnuPG project, be it
testing, coding, translating, suggesting, auditing, administering the
servers, spreading the word, and answering questions on the mailing
lists.
Many thanks to our numerous financial supporters, both corporate and
individuals. Without you it would not be possible to keep GnuPG in a
good shape and to address all the small and larger requests made by our
users. Thanks.
Happy hacking,
Your GnuPG hackers
p.s.
This is an announcement only mailing list. Please send replies only to
the gnupg-users'at'gnupg.org mailing list.
p.p.s
List of Release Signing Keys:
To guarantee that a downloaded GnuPG version has not been tampered by
malicious entities we provide signature files for all tarballs and
binary versions. The keys are also signed by the long term keys of
their respective owners. Current releases are signed by one or more
of these four keys:
rsa2048 2011-01-12 [expires: 2019-12-31]
Key fingerprint = D869 2123 C406 5DEA 5E0F 3AB5 249B 39D2 4F25 E3B6
Werner Koch (dist sig)
rsa2048 2014-10-29 [expires: 2019-12-31]
Key fingerprint = 46CC 7308 65BB 5C78 EBAB ADCF 0437 6F3E E085 6959
David Shaw (GnuPG Release Signing Key) <dshaw 'at' jabberwocky.com>
rsa2048 2014-10-29 [expires: 2020-10-30]
Key fingerprint = 031E C253 6E58 0D8E A286 A9F2 2071 B08A 33BD 3F06
NIIBE Yutaka (GnuPG Release Key) <gniibe 'at' fsij.org>
rsa3072 2017-03-17 [expires: 2027-03-15]
Key fingerprint = 5B80 C575 4298 F0CB 55D8 ED6A BCEF 7E29 4B09 2E28
Andre Heinecke (Release Signing Key)
The keys are available at <https://gnupg.org/signature_key.html> and
in any recently released GnuPG tarball in the file g10/distsigkey.gpg .
Note that this mail has been signed by a different key.
--
Die Gedanken sind frei. Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.
--
If you have a working or partly working program that you'd like
to offer to the GNU project as a GNU package,
see https://www.gnu.org/help/evaluation.html.
Posted Jul 10, 2019 12:34 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Jul 10, 2019 12:53 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link]
Posted Jul 10, 2019 12:55 UTC (Wed)
by knan (subscriber, #3940)
[Link] (17 responses)
Posted Jul 10, 2019 12:58 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (16 responses)
Posted Jul 10, 2019 14:36 UTC (Wed)
by ber (subscriber, #2142)
[Link] (15 responses)
Another way is requesting the pubkey for an email address via https://wiki.gnupg.org/WKD. This is a preferred way if you use email as pubkey identifier.
There are other ways like getting a file via https.
Thus you can still calculate the trust values in the Web of Trust.
(Disclosure: I'm active for GnuPG and Gpg4win and helped to design WKD.)
Posted Jul 10, 2019 17:31 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (14 responses)
Webserver adds dependency on HTTP, probably HTTPS, which causes SSL version/ciphersuite/… mismatches…
Posted Jul 11, 2019 6:01 UTC (Thu)
by gus3 (guest, #61103)
[Link] (13 responses)
(And maybe I don't get the connection. Just a side point, I'm sayin'.)
Posted Jul 11, 2019 14:16 UTC (Thu)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (12 responses)
But that’s off-topic here, and I’m not going to discuss it on a webforum.
Posted Jul 11, 2019 21:16 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Jul 11, 2019 23:24 UTC (Thu)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (10 responses)
DJB also has refused, multiple times, to offer a fallback copyright licence (many others I asked did), wilfully ignoring concerns even from OSI licence discussion/review members.
Posted Jul 12, 2019 14:11 UTC (Fri)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Jul 12, 2019 15:45 UTC (Fri)
by murukesh (subscriber, #97031)
[Link] (8 responses)
Posted Jul 13, 2019 18:13 UTC (Sat)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (7 responses)
>> How are DJB public-domain software different from other public-domain
They are not, that is the point.
murukesh wrote:
> IIRC in some jurisdictions, it's just not enough in some cases for the
While this is true for some jurisdictions, in many jurisdictions authors
The worse problem is, however, that the Berne Convention grants
It is known a court case in which a USA government employee successfully
This is why we can’t have nice things (unless the authors grant fallback
Posted Jul 17, 2019 10:05 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (6 responses)
How many European countries have estoppel or the equivalent?
If DJB has voluntarily placed his work in the Public Domain, then estoppel will protect you any where it applies. The problem with the government employees is quite likely because they were not the people who placed it in the public domain ...
Cheers,
Posted Jul 17, 2019 10:10 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
If I place my work in the Public Domain, that does not alter the fact that I am the author. In a country without moral rights, that permits my work to be copied unattributed. In a country with moral rights, I can demand that my name be attached to it. In both circumstances it should be illegal to attach someone else's name because that's plagiarism, or mis-attribution, or false description, or whatever other immoral behaviour you want to call it.
Cheers,
Posted Jul 17, 2019 11:50 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link]
In our countries, you cannot have moral rights but no exploitation rights, you can only licence the latter away, but both are bound to your person until you die, then for another 70 years plus how many seconds or days it takes to reach the next 1ˢᵗ January to your heirs. (That being said, there are reasons why you cannot execute your exploitation rights; having created the work as an employee is one.) In Germany specifically (don’t know about other countries), you can even recall the latter if you gave away an exclusive licence, after 30 years, to prevent exploitation (heh) of the creative people.
Posted Jul 17, 2019 11:45 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (3 responses)
Perhaps I could, as a private individual, use his stuff, but I certainly cannot include it in an OSS work and licence said OSS work to others, *especially* not if it’s a copylefted work in which I’m not the (otherwise) sole rights holder. IANAL, but that might even be copyfraud.
Plus, DJB doesn’t say anything granting. He just says “you don’t need a licence” (which is plain wrong), even when specifically asked and explained this point.
Posted Jul 17, 2019 13:41 UTC (Wed)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
In the US, the only person who gets to sue you for copyright infringement is the copyright proprietor. Therefore if DJB has no intention to sue anybody for infringing his copyright, ever, then as far as he's concerned he doesn't need to bother with an explicit license. The fact that this leaves potential propagators of his software (especially ones outside the US, where copyright law may work differently, particularly with respect to the public domain) on rather thin ice, legally speaking, is obviously not his problem. In addition, DJB is not known to be eager to admit that he's wrong about something, and that doesn't help, either.
This of course should render anyone contemplating using DJB's code cautious. It's certainly one of several reasons why I personally won't touch any of his stuff with a long pole if I can avoid it.
Posted Jul 17, 2019 20:42 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link] (1 responses)
Besides, as I said, if I’ll include it into another work, especially one under strong copyleft, this might be copyfraud, which has consequences for me independent of what DJB said.
That being said, DJB is a “hostile upstream” wrt licencing, and without an explicit licence from him, he can always go back on his word. (This might even have influence on the interpretation in court, since I *did* ask him.)
Issuing a fallback copyright licence for everyone else is just the decent thing to do, too.
Posted Jul 18, 2019 13:25 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Oh, absolutely. I don't want to defend DJB – he's obviously a brilliant mathematician and a pretty good programmer but software project stewardship doesn't seem to be his strong suit.
Posted Jul 17, 2019 17:40 UTC (Wed)
by mirabilos (subscriber, #84359)
[Link]
* avoid data loss when using keyservers (see https://dev.gnupg.org/T4628)
-- Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> Tue, 16 Jul 2019 20:20:39 -0400
Throwing the kid out with the bath water?
Throwing the kid out with the bath water?
Throwing the kid out with the bath water?
Throwing the kid out with the bath water?
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
For some users this is too complicated, this is why other methods of trust can be used in clients that implement modern methods.
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
>> software ?
> creator to say X is in the public domain. They have to explicitly
> waive some rights.
cannot voluntarily place a work into the Public Domain.
protection to a work in all *other* Berne Convention signatory countries
“in the same way a work of a citizen of that country is protected”, so
in a country that doesn’t allow their citizens to voluntarily give up
copyright, works from outside are also not permitted that. And even more
importantly, only copyright is harmonised in the Berne Convention, not
absence thereof.
defended their copyright over a work they did in the government position
(which is automatically PD in the USA, not vague like DJB’s statement)
in a European country.
licences for their work for all the other Berne Convention signatories).
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
defended their copyright over a work they did in the government position
(which is automatically PD in the USA, not vague like DJB’s statement)
in a European country.
Wol
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Wol
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Plus, DJB doesn’t say anything granting. He just says “you don’t need a licence” (which is plain wrong), even when specifically asked and explained this point.
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Web of Trust still usable (as before)
Issuing a fallback copyright licence for everyone else is just the decent thing to do, too.
It also deletes existing signatures from the local keyring!
* avoid O(N^2) operations when listing certificates with many sigs
[…]