Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

IssuerKeyId criticality and unsupported implementations #263

Open
caarlos0 opened this issue Jan 10, 2025 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #266
Open

IssuerKeyId criticality and unsupported implementations #263

caarlos0 opened this issue Jan 10, 2025 · 4 comments · May be fixed by #266

Comments

@caarlos0
Copy link
Contributor

In v1.1+ (#208), the issuer key ID subpacket was made critical again (reverting #175).

RPM 4.16 (used in centos 9, fedora 34, ...) does not support it. Seems to be fixed in 4.17+.
FWIW Centos 9 EOL is set to 2027-05-31.

Is it possible to set it back to false? Does it need to be true? Can we make that optional somehow?

see:

@twiss
Copy link
Member

twiss commented Jan 13, 2025

Apologies for the regression. The reason this was changed was for consistency with OpenPGP.js, although we could theoretically change it in both. I don't think it really makes sense for this to be an option, though. Perhaps, would it be an option for you to use a fork/patch that reverts this, instead?

@caarlos0
Copy link
Contributor Author

yes that's a valid option as well, but it always feels a bit sketchy to use a fork of crypto lib I think, so I would like to avoid it if possible...

@wxiaoguang
Copy link

We also experience the regression in Gitea's RPM package registry. Why issuer key ID must be critical? Looking forward to a clear solution.

caarlos0 added a commit to caarlos0/go-crypto that referenced this issue Jan 16, 2025
@caarlos0 caarlos0 linked a pull request Jan 16, 2025 that will close this issue
@caarlos0
Copy link
Contributor Author

PS: opened #266

not sure if we can just do that, but given it was like that for years before, I imagine we can?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants