On Thu, Aug 2, 2018 at 2:14 PM, Peter Lebbing <pe...@digitalbrains.com> wrote: > So I think it's a safe bet they also screwed up the PKESK packet for > your subkey, and the error is indeed related to it not representing a > valid session key.
As I would like to understand things a bit better, do you think it is possible to get some more details? In particular: * Is the encrypted packet in a bad format? * Does the 4096 bit RSA decryption fail? * Or: Is the decrypted packet in a bad format? Again, the output by `pgpdump` for the packet associated with my encryption key 04FDF78D1679DD94: $ pgpdump 000002-001.pk_enc New: Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packet(tag 1)(524 bytes) New version(3) Key ID - 0x04FDF78D1679DD94 Pub alg - RSA Encrypt or Sign(pub 1) RSA m^e mod n(4095 bits) - ... -> m = sym alg(1 byte) + checksum(2 bytes) + PKCS-1 block type 02 For comparison, the output for a packet encrypted with GnuPG: $ gpg --version gpg (GnuPG) 2.2.9 libgcrypt 1.8.3 […] $ gpg --recv BEF6EFD38FE8DCA0 $ echo "Hello world!" >test $ gpg -e -r BEF6EFD38FE8DCA0 test $ gpgsplit test.gpg $ ls -1 000001-001.pk_enc 000002-018.encrypted_mdc test test.gpg $ pgpdump 000001-001.pk_enc Old: Public-Key Encrypted Session Key Packet(tag 1)(524 bytes) New version(3) Key ID - 0x04FDF78D1679DD94 Pub alg - RSA Encrypt or Sign(pub 1) RSA m^e mod n(4095 bits) - ... -> m = sym alg(1 byte) + checksum(2 bytes) + PKCS-1 block type 02 The only difference: `Old` vs. `New` – Could this be an issue? PS: Had to think a bit that PKESK = “Public-Key Encrypted Session Key”. The crypto world seems to love acronyms. ;) (which does not make things easier for us users) _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users