No functional change.
We no longer need to identify the key and cert to mml-mode when
sending an S/MIME message, so making a copy of key+cert.pem to
test_suite.pem is superfluous. Get rid of the extra file.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
The documentation for message mode clearly states that EasyPG (which
uses GnuPG) is the default and recommended way to use S/MIME with
mml-secure:
[0] https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/message/Using-S_002fMIME.html
To ensure that this mode works, we just need to import the secret key
in question into gpgsm in addition to the public key. gpgsm should be
able pick the right keys+certificates to use based on To/From headers,
so we don't have to specify anything manually in the #secure mml tag.
The import process from the OpenSSL-preferred form (cert+secretkey) is
rather ugly, because gpgsm wants to see a PKCS#12 object when
importing secret keys.
Note that EasyPG generates the more modern Content-Type:
application/pkcs7-signature instead of application/x-pkcs7-signature
for the detached signature.
We are also obliged to manually set gpgsm's include-certs setting to 1
because gpgsm defaults to send "everything but the root cert". In our
weird test case, the certificate we're using is self-signed, so it
*is* the root cert, which means that gpgsm doesn't include it by
default. Setting it to 1 forces inclusion of the signer's cert, which
satisfies openssl's smime subcommand. See https://dev.gnupg.org/T4878
for more details.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This CA is useful for test suites and the like, but is not an
actually-secure CA, because its secret key material is also published.
I plan to use it for its intended purpose in the notmuch test suite.
It was copied from this Internet Draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-dkg-lamps-samples-01.html#name-certificate-authority-certi
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
GnuPG's gpgsm, like gpg, should always be used with --batch when it is
invoked in a non-interactive environment.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Starting with Emacs 27 the old `cl' implementation is finally
considered obsolete. Previously its use was strongly discouraged
at run-time but one was still allowed to use it at compile-time.
For the most part the transition is very simple and boils down to
adding the "cl-" prefix to some symbols. A few replacements do not
follow that simple pattern; e.g. `first' is replaced with `car',
even though the alias `cl-first' exists, because the latter is not
idiomatic emacs-lisp.
In a few cases we start using `pcase-let' or `pcase-lambda' instead
of renaming e.g. `first' to `car'. That way we can remind the reader
of the meaning of the various parts of the data that is being
deconstructed.
An obsolete `lexical-let' and a `lexical-let*' are replaced with their
regular variants `let' and `let*' even though we do not at the same
time enable `lexical-binding' for that file. That is the right thing
to do because it does not actually make a difference in those cases
whether lexical bindings are used or not, and because this should be
enabled in a separate commit.
We need to explicitly depend on the `cl-lib' package because Emacs
24.1 and 24.2 lack that library. When using these releases we end
up using the backport from GNU Elpa.
We need to explicitly require the `pcase' library because
`pcase-dolist' was not autoloaded until Emacs 25.1.
This test extracts values from a (key,value) map where multiple entries
can have the same key, and the entries are sorted by key, but not by
value. The test incorrectly assumes that the values will be sorted as
well, so sort the output.
Xapian 1.4 is over 3 years old now (1.4.0 released 2016-06-24),
and 1.2 has been deprecated in Notmuch version 0.27 (2018-06-13).
Xapian 1.4 supports compaction, field processors and retry locking;
conditionals checking compaction and field processors were removed
but user may want to disable retry locking at configure time so it
is kept.
'qsx' reported a bug on #notmuch with notmuch-dump and large stored
queries. This test will pass (on my machine) if the value of `repeat'
is made smaller.
Reported-By: Thomas Schneider <qsx@chaotikum.eu>
In particular, timestamps beyond 2038 could overflow the sprinter
interface on systems where time_t is 64-bit but 'int' is a signed 32-bit
integer type.
The entire python-cffi test suite is considered as a single test at
the level of the notmuch test suite. This might or might not be ideal,
but it gets them run.
We want freeing the returned stream to also free these underlying
objects. Compare tests/test-filters.c in the gmime 3.2.x source, which
uses this same idiom.
Thanks to James Troup for the report and the fix.
When showing or replying to a message that has been mangled in transit
by an MTA in the "Mixed up" way, notmuch should instead use the
repaired form of the message.
Tracking the repaired GMimeObject for the lifetime of the mime_node so
that it is cleaned up properly is probably the trickiest part of this
patch, but the choices here are based on the idea that the
mime_node_context is the memory manager for the whole mime_node tree
in the first place, so new GMimeObject tree created on-the-fly during
message parsing should be disposed of in the same place.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
When encountering a message that has been mangled in the "mixed up"
way by an intermediate MTA, notmuch should instead repair it and index
the repaired form.
When it does this, it also associates the index.repaired=mixedup
property with the message. If a problem is found with this repair
process, or an improved repair process is proposed later, this should
make it easy for people to reindex the relevant message. The property
will also hopefully make it easier to diagnose this particular problem
in the future.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Some MTAs mangle e-mail messages in transit in ways that are
repairable.
Microsoft Exchange (in particular, the version running today on
Office365's mailservers) appears to mangle multipart/encrypted
messages in a way that makes them undecryptable by the recipient.
I've documented this in section 4.1 "Mixed-up encryption" of draft -00
of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dkg-openpgp-pgpmime-message-mangling
Fortunately, it's possible to repair such a message, and notmuch can
do that so that a user who receives an encrypted message from a user
of office365.com can still decrypt the message.
Enigmail already knows about this particular kind of mangling. It
describes it as "broken PGP email format probably caused by an old
Exchange server", and it tries to repair by directly changing the
message held by the user. if this kind of repair goes wrong, the
repair process can cause data loss
(https://sourceforge.net/p/enigmail/bugs/987/, yikes).
The tests introduced here are currently broken. In subsequent
patches, i'll introduce a non-destructive form of repair for notmuch
so that notmuch users can read mail that has been mangled in this way,
and the tests will succeed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
When we notice a legacy-display part during indexing, it makes more
sense to avoid indexing it as part of the message body.
Given that the protected subject will already be indexed, there is no
need to index this part at all, so we skip over it.
If this happens during indexing, we set a property on the message:
index.repaired=skip-protected-headers-legacy-display
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Make use of the previous changes to fast-forward past any
legacy-display parts during "notmuch show" and "notmuch reply".
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Enigmail generates a "legacy-display" part when it sends encrypted
mail with a protected Subject: header. This part is intended to
display the Subject for mail user agents that are capable of
decryption, but do not know how to deal with embedded protected
headers.
This part is the first child of a two-part multipart/mixed
cryptographic payload within a cryptographic envelope that includes
encryption (that is, it is not just a cleartext signed message). It
uses Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers.
That is:
A └┬╴multipart/encrypted
B ├─╴application/pgp-encrypted
C └┬╴application/octet-stream
* ╤ <decryption>
D └┬╴multipart/mixed; protected-headers=v1 (cryptographic payload)
E ├─╴text/rfc822-headers; protected-headers=v1 (legacy-display part)
F └─╴… (actual message body)
In discussions with jrollins, i've come to the conclusion that a
legacy-display part should be stripped entirely from "notmuch show"
and "notmuch reply" now that these tools can understand and interpret
protected headers.
You can tell when a message part is a protected header part this way:
* is the payload (D) multipart/mixed with exactly two children?
* is its first child (E) Content-Type: text/rfc822-headers?
* does the first child (E) have the property protected-headers=v1?
* do all the headers in the body of the first child (E) match
the protected headers in the payload part (D) itself?
If this is the case, and we already know how to deal with the
protected header, then there is no reason to try to render the
legacy-display part itself for the user.
Furthermore, when indexing, if we are indexing properly, we should
avoid indexing the text in E as part of the message body.
'notmuch reply' is an interesting case: the standard use of 'notmuch
reply' will end up omitting all mention of protected Subject:.
The right fix is for the replying MUA to be able to protect its
headers, and for it to set them appropriately based on headers found
in the original message.
If a replying MUA is unable to protect headers, but still wants the
user to be able to see the original header, a replying MUA that
notices that the original message's subject differs from the proposed
reply subject may choose to include the original's subject in the
quoted/attributed text. (this would be a stopgap measure; it's not
even clear that there is user demand for it)
This test suite change indicates what we want to happen for this case
(the tests are currently broken), and includes three additional TODO
suggestions of subtle cases for anyone who wants to flesh out the test
suite even further. (i believe all these cases should be already
fixed by the rest of this series, but haven't had time to write the
tests for the unusual cases)
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Previously, when all tests were skipped on a test file, there were
no indication of this in the final results aggregate-results.sh
printed.
Now count of the files where all tests were skipped is printed.
This is the result of running:
$ uncrustify --replace --config ../devel/uncrustify.cfg *.cc *.c *.h
in the test directory.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This removes the dependency of this test script on gdb, and
considerably speeds up the running of the tests.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
These can be used e.g. to override return values for functions, in
place of the existing scripting of gdb.
This prepends to LD_PRELOAD rather than clobbering it, thanks to a
suggestion from Tomi Ollila.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
- all variables in $((...)) without leading $
- all comparisons use -gt, -eq or -ne
- no -a nor -o inside [ ... ] expressions
- all indentation levels using one tab
Dropped unnecessary empty string check when reading results files.
Replaced pluralize() which was executed in subshell with
pluralize_s(). pluralize_s sets $s to 's' or '' based on value of
$1. Calls to pluralize_s are done in context of current shell, so
no forks to subshells executed.
When the user knows the signer's key, we want "notmuch show" to be
able to verify the signature of an encrypted and signed message
regardless of whether we are using a stashed session key or not.
I wrote this test because I was surprised to see signature
verification failing when viewing some encrypted messages after
upgrading to GPGME 1.13.0-1 in debian experimental.
The added tests here all pass with GPGME 1.12.0, but the final test
fails with 1.13.0, due to some buggy updates to GPGME upstream: see
https://dev.gnupg.org/T3464 for more details.
While the bug needs to be fixed in GPGME, notmuch's test suite needs
to make sure that GMime is doing what we expect it to do; i was a bit
surprised that it hadn't caught the problem, hence this patch.
I've fixed this bug in debian experimental with gpgme 1.13.0-2, so the
tests should pass on any debian system. I've also fixed it in the
gpgme packages (1.13.0-2~ppa1) in the ubuntu xenial PPA
(ppa:notmuch/notmuch) that notmuch uses for Travis CI.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Protected subject lines were being emitted in reply when the cleartext
of documents was indexed. create_reply_message() was pulling the
subject line from the index, rather than pulling it from the
GMimeMessage object that it already has on hand.
This one-line fix to notmuch-reply.c solves that problem, and doesn't
cause any additional tests to fail.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
These tests are currently broken! When a protected subject is indexed
in the clear, it leaks in the reply headers :(
For emacs, we set up separate tests for when the protected header is
indexed in the clear and when it is unindexed. neither case should
leak, but the former wasn't tested yet.
We will fix the two broken tests in a subsequent patch.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This tests notmuch-show; headers appear appropriately based on the
setting of notmuch-crypto-process-mime.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
We initially test only notmuch-search; tests for other functionality
come in different patchsets later.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
We want to make sure that internally-forwarded messages don't end up
"bubbling up" when they aren't actually the cryptographic payload.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This test scans for all the possible protected headers (including
bogus/broken ones) that are present in the protected-headers corpus,
trying to make sure that only the ones that are not broken or
malformed show up in a search after re-indexing.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Up to this point, we've tested protected headers on messages that have
either been encrypted or signed, but not both.
This adds a couple tests of signed+encrypted messages, one where the
subject line is masked (outside subject line is "Subject Unavailable")
and another where it is not (outside Subject: matches inner Subject:)
See the discussion at
https://dkg.fifthhorseman.net/blog/e-mail-cryptography.html#protected-headers
for more details about the nuances between signed, stripped, and
stubbed headers.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
When indexing the cleartext of an encrypted message, record any
protected subject in the database, which should make it findable and
visible in search.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Now that we can decrypt headers, we want to make sure that clients
using "notmuch reply" to prepare a reply don't leak cleartext in their
subject lines. In particular, the ["reply-headers"]["Subject"] should
by default show the external Subject.
A replying MUA that intends to protect the Subject line should show
the user the Subject from ["original"]["headers"]["Subject"] instead
of using ["reply-headers"]["Subject"].
This minor asymmetry with "notmuch show" is intentional. While both
tools always render the cleartext subject line when they know it (in
["headers"]["Subject"] for "notmuch show" and in
["original"]["headers"]["Subject"] for "notmuch reply"), "notmuch
reply" should never leak something that should stay under encrypted
cover in "reply-headers".
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Make sure that we emit the correct cryptographic envelope status for
cleartext signed messages.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Adding another test to ensure that we handle protected headers
gracefully when no external subject is present.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
The header-mask member of the per-message crypto object allows a
clever UI frontend to mark whether a header was protected (or not).
And if it was protected, it contains enough information to show useful
detail to an interested user. For example, an MUA could offer a "show
what this message's Subject looked like on the wire" feature in expert
mode.
As before, we only handle Subject for now, but we might be able to
handle other headers in the future.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Amended by db: tweaked schemata notation.
Correctly fix the two outstanding tests so that the protected (hidden)
subject is properly reported.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
Here we add several variant e-mail messages, some of which have
correctly-structured protected headers, and some of which do not. The
goal of the tests is to ensure that the right protected subjects get
reported.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This makes it easier to write fairly compact, readable tests of json
output, without needing to sanitize away parts that we don't care
about.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
This paves the way for emitting protected headers after verification
and decryption, because it means that the headers will only be emitted
after the body has been parsed.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
In certain cases of test suite failure, the summary report was not
being printed. In particular, any failure on the parallel test suite,
and any aborted test in the serialized test suite would end up hiding
the summary.
It's better to always show the summary where we can (while preserving
the return code). If we do abort due to this high-level failure,
though, we should also announce to the user that we're doing so as
close to the end of the process as possible, to make it easier to find
the problem.
Signed-off-by: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net>
