version string too long when signing newsgroup control messages? - PGP

This is a discussion on version string too long when signing newsgroup control messages? - PGP ; I'm trying to work out a scheme to sign newsgroup control posts and I'm wondering if there will be a problem with the version field in the X-PGP-Sig: header I'm generating. According to ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/FORMAT I need to copy the version ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: version string too long when signing newsgroup control messages?

  1. version string too long when signing newsgroup control messages?

    I'm trying to work out a scheme to sign newsgroup control posts and I'm
    wondering if there will be a problem with the version field in the
    X-PGP-Sig: header I'm generating. According to
    ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/FORMAT I need to copy the version
    information in the detached signature and put that after the X-PGP-Sig:
    header, then followed by the list of headers that were signed. In my case
    I'm using GPG 1.2.3, so my output on the version line in my signature looks
    like:
    Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)

    So my X-PGP-Sig: header should look like:
    X-PGP-Sig: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
    Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender

    All well and good, but will there be a problem with the multi-word version
    string for news server scripts that process these control messages? I'm not
    familiar with those server scripts and I want to make absolutely sure my
    X-PGP-Sig header is correct. Are they smart enough to pull in the multiple
    words into one version string so that they can properly reconstruct the
    original control message to be verified?

    -Eric



  2. Re: version string too long when signing newsgroup control messages?

    I think I may have found my own answer, sorta, from the pgpverify script:

    # GnuPG has version numbers containing spaces, which breaks our header
    # format. Find just some portion that contains a digit.
    ($version) = ($version =~ /(\S*\d\S*)/);

    So I think I need to chuck everything but "v1.2.3" for the version field in
    the signed control message??

    "Eric Sassaman [MS]" wrote in message
    news:3f7a7a7c$1@news.microsoft.com...
    > I'm trying to work out a scheme to sign newsgroup control posts and I'm
    > wondering if there will be a problem with the version field in the
    > X-PGP-Sig: header I'm generating. According to
    > ftp://ftp.isc.org/pub/pgpcontrol/FORMAT I need to copy the version
    > information in the detached signature and put that after the X-PGP-Sig:
    > header, then followed by the list of headers that were signed. In my case
    > I'm using GPG 1.2.3, so my output on the version line in my signature

    looks
    > like:
    > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
    >
    > So my X-PGP-Sig: header should look like:
    > X-PGP-Sig: GnuPG v1.2.3 (MingW32)
    > Subject,Control,Message-ID,Date,From,Sender
    >
    > All well and good, but will there be a problem with the multi-word version
    > string for news server scripts that process these control messages? I'm

    not
    > familiar with those server scripts and I want to make absolutely sure my
    > X-PGP-Sig header is correct. Are they smart enough to pull in the multiple
    > words into one version string so that they can properly reconstruct the
    > original control message to be verified?
    >
    > -Eric
    >
    >




+ Reply to Thread