Fix for issue 50, encrypting with keys that don't have a KeyFlags subpacket #52
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Thanks for contributing! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The current code checks the KeyFlags subpacket to determine if a key can be used to encrypt/sign.
However if the key doesn't have a KeyFlags subpacket Bouncy-GPG refuses to use it to encrypt/sign, whereas GPG has a fallback scenario where it analyses the key's algorithm to determine its role.
We implemented the same fallback scenario here, using the key algorithm if it doesn't have a KeyFlags subpacket.