Details about the (ongoing) response to https://gpg.fail/ from GnuPG's side:

* https://www.gnupg.org/blog/20251226-cleartext-signatures.html
* https://dev.gnupg.org/T7906 Memory Corruption in ASCII-Armor Parsing
* https://dev.gnupg.org/T7900 (overview)

Please upgrade to GnuPG 2.5.16, 2.4.9 or #Gpg4win 5.0.0-beta479 which already have the fix for what (currently) is seen to be the only major defect: T7906.

(Researchers - Thanks! - found defects in GnuPG, Sequoia-PG, Minisign and age.)

#EndtoEndCrypto #LibrePGP #GnuPG #Security

gpg.fail

#GnuPG v2.5.14 is here to try.

A no-brainer upgrade for those who use the 2.5 series already. You'd get some defects fixed and a new secret key export-import for the Post quantum cryptography (#PQC) algorithm "Kyber". RCF8332 for ssh is now supported.

For others: the 2.5 series is good for Windows 64 and PQC. #LibrePGP #OpenPGPv4 #EndtoEndCrypto

https://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2025q4/000499.html

[Announce] GnuPG 2.5.14 released

@Velocifyer @andrewg That's the reason for my plans to switch from #GnuPG to #sequoiapgp, not the #LibrePGP vs #RFC9580 mess. If a RTFM doesn't suffice and it comes down to RTFC (...Code), I am out.

See GnuPG manpage:

❯ gpg --version | head -n 1
gpg (GnuPG) 2.5.13
❯ man gpg | sed -n '/^[[:space:]]*dane/,/^$/p'
dane Locate a key using DANE, as specified in draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-05.txt.

... and:

The lookup result MUST pass DNSSEC validation; if validation reaches any state other than "Secure", the verification MUST be treated as a failure.

Source: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey-05#section-5

Using DANE to Associate OpenPGP public keys with email addresses

OpenPGP is a message format for email (and file) encryption that lacks a standardized lookup mechanism to securely obtain OpenPGP public keys. This document specifies a method for publishing and locating OpenPGP public keys in DNS for a specific email address using a new OPENPGPKEY DNS Resource Record. Security is provided via DNSSEC.

IETF Datatracker
@keys_openpgp_org @upofadown #LibrePGP is, for me, the Office Open XML of the #PGP world.

Ktoś powinien zrobić diagram.

#PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) to oryginalne, własnościowe narzędzie. Z niego wyprowadzono otwarty standard #OpenPGP. Ten standard zaimplementowano w #GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), którego autorzy przejęli rozwój standardu, do momentu, w którym stwierdzili, że nie dogadają się ze współautorami, i sforkowali go do #LibrePGP. Następnie GPG sforkowano jako #FreePG, żeby przywrócić zgodność z OpenPGP.

Someone needs to make a flowchart for this.

#PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) is the proprietary tool. The open standard developed from it is called #OpenPGP. This standard was implemented by a tool called #GPG (GNU Privacy Guard), who took up the development of the standard, until they've decided they don't like where others are pushing it, so they've forked the standard into #LibrePGP. Then GPG was forked into #FreePG to bring it back to OpenPGP compliance.

@DD9JN ... and #GnuPG v2.5.13 is a production ready version with improvements for PQC encryption and Windows.

This version comes with a few smaller security improvements over the previous release, and reduces problems if several applications use GnuPG as crypto engine in the background.

#OpenPGPv4 #LibrePGP #EndtoEndCrypto #FreeSoftware

@mgorny The #OpenPGP situation is really sad especially because there is no alternative in sight.
This was also the topic of the round table discussion in the #GentooWorkshop 2025-06-14. Dear community, what do you think? Would you like another meeting to discuss #LibrePGP, #Sequioa-pgp and #GnuPG? Just let us know.
https://gentoo-ev.org/news/online-workshops-2025/
Online-Workshops 2025

Auch im Jahr 2025 werden wir wieder eine Reihe von Online-Workshops mit Vorträgen organisieren. Sie werden über BigBlueButton als Konferenzsystem stattfinden. Die Teilnahme ist kostenlos und auch für

Förderverein Gentoo e.V.
@mgorny Thanks for planning to bring up my bug (https://bugs.gentoo.org/963069) for discussion in the council. I personally use OpenPGP with all bells and whistles, but agree that what happens lately (#LibrePGP vs #RFC9580) is a s**tshow, and #OpenPGP was never easy to use. When it comes down to it, we should think about what the main use of OpenPGP at Gentoo is. And, that's signing commits if I am not mistaken. If #RFC9580 and #LibrePGP folks can't reach an agreement, I hope that #Git gets some logic implemented that allows it to automatically delegate the task of v5 (LibrePGP) or v6 (RFC9580) signature verification to the correct OpenPGP tool. In that case, users are free to choose the tool of their choice for Git commit signing.
963069 – OpenPGP v5 (LibrePGP) and OpenPGP v6 (RFC 9580) formats are incompatible, GLEP63 should mention and handle this

No to poprawcie mnie, jeżeli się mylę, co do aktualnego stanu #OpenPGP.

Po pierwsze, jest dawne #RFC4880bis, aktualnie przepychane jako "#LibrePGP", używane przez #GnuPG (i #rnp?), z formatem kluczy "v5" — i zdaje się, że każdy inny projekt spogląda na to z politowaniem.

Po drugie, jest #RFC9580 z formatem kluczy "v6", używany przez #OpenPGPjs, #SequoiaPGP (i inne narzędzia), ale odrzucony przez GnuPG. I wygląda na to, że jest przepychane z założeniem, że GnuPG ugnie się pod presją.

Więc mamy dwa niezgodne ze sobą standardy, ze "wspólnym mianownikiem" w postaci zabytkowego #RFC4880; jedne narzędzia przepychają jeden standard i ignorują drugi, a inne decydują się wspierać oba, by pomóc swoim użytkownikom. A #Gentoo ostatecznie utknie z tym, co wspierać będzie GnuPG, bo potrzebujemy kryptografii, która działa na wszystkich wspieranych platformach, a nie tylko tam, gdzie Rust.

https://bugs.gentoo.org/963069

963069 – OpenPGP v5 (LibrePGP) and OpenPGP v6 (RFC 9580) formats are incompatible, GLEP63 should mention and handle this