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

In case one key is not okay fsck gives up #2640

Open
DEvil0000 opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

In case one key is not okay fsck gives up #2640

DEvil0000 opened this issue Aug 7, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Defects
Milestone

Comments

@DEvil0000
Copy link

Summary

In case one key is not okay fsck gives up (in my case it was not an E type key as recipient)

Steps To Reproduce

  • add a key to recipients without E type
  • add some others as well
  • re-encrypt on add recipient fails
  • fsck --decrypt gives up re-encrypting after seeing the "bad" key

Expected behavior

re-encrypt for all vaild keys

Environment

  • OS: fedora 38
  • OS version: 6.3.13?
  • gopass Version: 1.15.4?
  • Installation method: package from github releases
@dominikschulz dominikschulz self-assigned this Aug 9, 2023
@dominikschulz dominikschulz added the bug Defects label Aug 9, 2023
@dominikschulz dominikschulz added this to the 1.15.8 milestone Aug 9, 2023
@dominikschulz
Copy link
Member

I don't think this is what we want. If we silently ignore an invalid key that might cause some users to loose access to their keys.

I'd rather expect the user to remove the invalid key and then re-encrypting again.

Do you think there is anything we can do to make this easier?

@dominikschulz dominikschulz modified the milestones: 1.15.8, 1.x.x Sep 11, 2023
@dominikschulz dominikschulz removed their assignment Sep 11, 2023
@DEvil0000
Copy link
Author

If the error would be more clear and point to the key to remove it would already help. Maybe providing the command needed and some human readable explanation why the key is invalid would be nice.
I however think ignoring the key, warn about it and continue with the fsck/re-encrypt is the correct behavior.
I can imagine use cases where keys may not be added or removed by everyone and only some users but fsck should be possible all the time.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants