mirror of
git://git.gnupg.org/gnupg.git
synced 2025-01-21 14:47:03 +01:00
* sign.c (sign_file): When signing with multiple DSA keys, one being DSA1
and one being DSA2 and encrypting at the same time, if the recipient preferences give a hash that can work with the DSA2 key, then allow the DSA1 key to be promoted rather than giving up and using hash_for().
This commit is contained in:
David Shaw
parent
7c457fac67
commit
2a31983ef8
@ -1,5 +1,11 @@
|
||||
2006-06-28 David Shaw <dshaw@jabberwocky.com>
|
||||
|
||||
* sign.c (sign_file): When signing with multiple DSA keys, one
|
||||
being DSA1 and one being DSA2 and encrypting at the same time, if
|
||||
the recipient preferences give a hash that can work with the DSA2
|
||||
key, then allow the DSA1 key to be promoted rather than giving up
|
||||
and using hash_for().
|
||||
|
||||
* pkclist.c (algo_available): Automatically enable DSA2 mode when
|
||||
handling a key that clearly isn't DSA1 (i.e. q!=160).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
92
g10/sign.c
92
g10/sign.c
@ -319,28 +319,6 @@ do_sign( PKT_secret_key *sk, PKT_signature *sig,
|
||||
}
|
||||
else
|
||||
{
|
||||
#if 0
|
||||
/* Disabled for now. It seems reasonable to accept a
|
||||
truncated hash for a DSA1 key, even though we don't
|
||||
generate it without --enable-dsa2. Be liberal in what you
|
||||
accept, etc. */
|
||||
|
||||
/* If it's a DSA key, and q is 160 bits, it might be an
|
||||
old-style DSA key. If the hash doesn't match the q, fail
|
||||
unless --enable-dsa2 is set. If the q isn't 160 bits, then
|
||||
allow any hash since it must be a DSA2 key (if the hash is
|
||||
too small, we'll fail in encode_md_value). */
|
||||
|
||||
if(sk->pubkey_algo==PUBKEY_ALGO_DSA
|
||||
&& (mpi_get_nbits(sk->skey[1])/8)==20
|
||||
&& !opt.flags.dsa2
|
||||
&& md_digest_length(digest_algo)!=20)
|
||||
{
|
||||
log_error(_("DSA requires the use of a 160 bit hash algorithm\n"));
|
||||
return G10ERR_GENERAL;
|
||||
}
|
||||
#endif
|
||||
|
||||
frame = encode_md_value( NULL, sk, md, digest_algo );
|
||||
if (!frame)
|
||||
return G10ERR_GENERAL;
|
||||
@ -866,8 +844,13 @@ sign_file( STRLIST filenames, int detached, STRLIST locusr,
|
||||
if (DBG_HASHING)
|
||||
md_start_debug (mfx.md, "sign");
|
||||
|
||||
/* If we're encrypting and signing, it is reasonable to pick the
|
||||
hash algorithm to use out of the recepient key prefs. */
|
||||
/* If we're encrypting and signing, it is reasonable to pick the
|
||||
hash algorithm to use out of the recepient key prefs. This is
|
||||
best effort only, as in a DSA2 and smartcard world there are
|
||||
cases where we cannot please everyone with a single hash (DSA2
|
||||
wants >160 and smartcards want =160). In the future this could
|
||||
be more complex with different hashes for each sk, but the
|
||||
current design requires a single hash for all SKs. */
|
||||
if(pk_list)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if(opt.def_digest_algo)
|
||||
@ -883,43 +866,54 @@ sign_file( STRLIST filenames, int detached, STRLIST locusr,
|
||||
}
|
||||
else
|
||||
{
|
||||
int hashlen=0,algo;
|
||||
int hashlen=0,algo,smartcard=0;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Of course, if the recipient asks for something
|
||||
unreasonable (like a non-160-bit hash for DSA without
|
||||
--enable-dsa2, for example), then don't do it. Check
|
||||
all sk's - if any are DSA, then the hash has
|
||||
restrictions. In the future this can be more complex
|
||||
with different hashes for each sk, but so long as there
|
||||
is only one signing algorithm with hash restrictions,
|
||||
this is ok. -dms */
|
||||
unreasonable (like the wrong hash for a DSA key) then
|
||||
don't do it. Check all sk's - if any are DSA or live
|
||||
on a smartcard, then the hash has restrictions and we
|
||||
may not be able to give the recipient what they want.
|
||||
For DSA, pass a hint for the largest q we have. Note
|
||||
that this means that a q>160 key will override a q=160
|
||||
key and force the use of truncation for the q=160 key.
|
||||
The alternative would be to ignore the recipient prefs
|
||||
completely and get a different hash for each DSA key in
|
||||
hash_for(). The override behavior here is more or less
|
||||
reasonable as it is under the control of the user which
|
||||
keys they sign with for a given message and the fact
|
||||
that the message with multiple signatures won't be
|
||||
usable on an implementation that doesn't understand
|
||||
DSA2 anyway. */
|
||||
|
||||
for( sk_rover = sk_list; sk_rover; sk_rover = sk_rover->next )
|
||||
{
|
||||
if(sk_rover->sk->pubkey_algo==PUBKEY_ALGO_DSA)
|
||||
{
|
||||
if(opt.flags.dsa2)
|
||||
hashlen=mpi_get_nbits(sk_rover->sk->skey[1])/8;
|
||||
else
|
||||
hashlen=20;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
int temp_hashlen=mpi_get_nbits(sk_rover->sk->skey[1])/8;
|
||||
|
||||
/* Pick a hash that is large enough for our
|
||||
largest q */
|
||||
|
||||
if(hashlen<temp_hashlen)
|
||||
hashlen=temp_hashlen;
|
||||
}
|
||||
else if(sk_rover->sk->is_protected
|
||||
&& sk_rover->sk->protect.s2k.mode==1002)
|
||||
{
|
||||
/* Current smartcards only do 160-bit hashes.
|
||||
Note that this may well have to change as the
|
||||
cards add algorithms. */
|
||||
|
||||
hashlen=20;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
smartcard=1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
if((algo=
|
||||
select_algo_from_prefs(pk_list,PREFTYPE_HASH,-1,
|
||||
hashlen?&hashlen:NULL))>0)
|
||||
recipient_digest_algo=algo;
|
||||
/* Current smartcards only do 160-bit hashes. If we have
|
||||
to have a >160-bit hash, then we can't use the
|
||||
recipient prefs as we'd need both =160 and >160 at the
|
||||
same time and recipient prefs currently require a
|
||||
single hash for all signatures. All this may well have
|
||||
to change as the cards add algorithms. */
|
||||
|
||||
if(!smartcard || (smartcard && hashlen==20))
|
||||
if((algo=
|
||||
select_algo_from_prefs(pk_list,PREFTYPE_HASH,-1,
|
||||
hashlen?&hashlen:NULL))>0)
|
||||
recipient_digest_algo=algo;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user