Re: [ANNOUNCE] experiemental dpkg available
On Wed, 27 Oct 1999, Ben Collins wrote:
> It probably would, which isn't all that insecure. Question is, some one
> needs to do it and send the patch to GPG. The alternative is gpg accepts a
> --fd-??? option that let's you tell it which fd to check for the
> passphrase, a forked process could then feed it to that fd repeatedly
> until killed.
GPG has something called 'co-process' support, basically the password
prompting program (ie your dpkg thingy) invokes gpg with a locked shared
memory segment that is used to transfer the password and other sensitive
type data. There is a library floating around that implements the clients
side stuff for co-processes, I suspect it is the proper thing to use for
this.
Alternatively you can use the slightly less secure --passphrase-fd <n>
option.
Jason
Reply to: