Codeberg/Community
54
325
Fork
You've already forked Community
12

GPG Signed Commits reveal email address #335

Closed
opened 2020年11月13日 11:50:53 +01:00 by Ghost · 10 comments

Commits that are signed using a registered GPG key display the registered email address of the author even when the setting "Hide Email Address" is turned on.

Example: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/commits/branch/master. Hovering on the green lock displays the email address even when their user profile doesn't display the same (meaning their "Hide Email Address" setting is checked)

I have seen this happening on one of my private repos as well

Not sure if this is a Gitea related issue because a repo on Gitea.com (using Gitea 1.14.0) with signed commits doesn't show the email address of the author.

Commits that are signed using a registered GPG key display the registered email address of the author even when the setting "Hide Email Address" is turned on. Example: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot/commits/branch/master. Hovering on the green lock displays the email address even when their [user profile](https://codeberg.org/dnkl) doesn't display the same (meaning their "Hide Email Address" setting is checked) I have seen this happening on one of my private repos as well Not sure if this is a Gitea related issue because a [repo on Gitea.com (using Gitea 1.14.0) with signed commits]( https://gitea.com/sapk/explore/commits/branch/master) doesn't show the email address of the author.

Just my own thoughts about this:

Why people are complaining about privacy issues with emails exposed to UI, git store them anyway, If you realy want to hide your email you simply should not add it into your git configuration and commit it.

And Signing Commits will by it's meaning connect a commit to a (email-)identity.

So if People realy not want there email exposed they should just stop using it to commit stuff.


To the issue, it is gitea related but the whole signing infrastructure got some refactoring in v1.13.0(unreleased). @bohrium272 so if you wait it will be resolved when codeberg is upgrading :)

Just my own thoughts about this: Why people are complaining about privacy issues with emails exposed to UI, git store them anyway, If you realy want to hide your email you simply should not add it into your git configuration and commit it. And Signing Commits will by it's meaning connect a commit to a (email-)identity. So if People realy not want there email exposed they should just stop using it to commit stuff. ------ To the issue, it is gitea related but the whole signing infrastructure got some refactoring in v1.13.0(unreleased). @bohrium272 so if you wait it will be resolved when codeberg is upgrading :)
Member
Copy link

I tend to agree with @6543 here. Especially as Gitea supports multiple email addresses, commits can get signed with secondary or even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits.

Git needs email addresses to work, and users are free to choose the address they like to commit+sign their commits with. No need to expose a private address; privacy should focus on protecting the private address and ensure that there is always the choice to use a secondary, public address for commit+signing.

I tend to agree with @6543 here. Especially as Gitea supports multiple email addresses, commits can get signed with secondary or even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits. Git needs email addresses to work, and users are free to choose the address they like to commit+sign their commits with. No need to expose a private address; privacy should focus on protecting the private address and ensure that there is always the choice to use a secondary, public address for commit+signing.

I agree as well.

Just wanted to make sure that if possibly the email for a signed commit can be hidden (as seen on the gitea.com repo I linked above), its best to have it hidden.

And Signing Commits will by it’s meaning connect a commit to a (email-)identity.
So if People realy not want there email exposed they should just stop using it to commit stuff.

Understood and agreed

even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits

I tried that and it didn't work. Does the noreply address need to be added as a secondary address before using a key associated with it?

I agree as well. Just wanted to make sure that if possibly the email for a signed commit can be hidden (as seen on the [gitea.com repo](https://gitea.com/sapk/explore/commits/branch/master) I linked above), its best to have it hidden. >And Signing Commits will by it’s meaning connect a commit to a (email-)identity. So if People realy not want there email exposed they should just stop using it to commit stuff. Understood and agreed >even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits I tried that and it didn't work. Does the noreply address need to be added as a secondary address before using a key associated with it?
Member
Copy link

even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits

I tried that and it didn't work. Does the noreply address need to be added as a secondary address before creating using a key associated with it?

What exactly went wrong? You should be able to commit using this address.

> >even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits > > I tried that and it didn't work. Does the noreply address need to be added as a secondary address before creating using a key associated with it? What exactly went wrong? You should be able to commit using this address.

I am able to commit using the address.

commits can get signed with secondary or even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits.

However I am not able to sign a commit with a GPG key having the noreply email address as part of the identity.

Steps:

  1. Generate a GPG key and enter the noreply email address when asked for
  2. Try to add the generated key on Codeberg through settings.

Step 2 is where it fails.

I am able to commit using the address. >commits can get signed with secondary or even the noreply address that is also used in GUI commits. However I am not able to sign a commit with a GPG key having the noreply email address as part of the identity. Steps: 1. Generate a GPG key and enter the noreply email address when asked for 2. Try to add the generated key on Codeberg through settings. Step 2 is where it fails.

@hw maby woth a own section "prifacy" in https://docs.codeberg.org ?

@bohrium272 it should work ... I'll test

@hw maby woth a own section "prifacy" in https://docs.codeberg.org ? @bohrium272 it should work ... I'll test

@6543 The issue mentioned by @bohrium272 still persists. I generated a GPG key for the email address chaptergy@noreply.codeberg.org and tried to add it to my Codeberg account. But this fails with the error message: This GPG key is not usable with any email address associated with your account.

@6543 The issue mentioned by @bohrium272 still persists. I generated a GPG key for the email address `chaptergy@noreply.codeberg.org` and tried to add it to my Codeberg account. But this fails with the error message: `This GPG key is not usable with any email address associated with your account.`

@chaptergy this is not a bug but a feature request ...

I'll file up an upstream issue

@chaptergy this is not a bug but a feature request ... I'll file up an upstream issue
-> https://github.com/go-gitea/gitea/issues/15263

I'm sorry, I assumed since you said

@bohrium272 it should work ... I'll test

right after his report with the GPG keys, that this behaviour is not intended.

I'm sorry, I assumed since you said > @bohrium272 it should work ... I'll test right after his report with the GPG keys, that this behaviour is not intended.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
main
No results found.
Labels
Clear labels
accessibility

Reduces accessibility and is thus a "bug" for certain user groups on Codeberg.
bug

Something is not working the way it should. Does not concern outages.
bug
infrastructure

Errors evidently caused by infrastructure malfunctions or outages
Codeberg

This issue involves Codeberg's downstream modifications and settings and/or Codeberg's structures.
contributions welcome

Please join the discussion and consider contributing a PR!
docs

No bug, but an improvement to the docs or UI description will help
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists
enhancement

New feature
infrastructure

Involves changes to the server setups, use `bug/infrastructure` for infrastructure-related user errors.
legal

An issue directly involving legal compliance
licence / ToS

involving questions about the ToS, especially licencing compliance
please chill
we are volunteers

Please consider editing your posts and remember that there is a human on the other side. We get that you are frustrated, but it's harder for us to help you this way.
public relations

Things related to Codeberg's external communication
question

More information is needed
question
user support

This issue contains a clearly stated problem. However, it is not clear whether we have to fix anything on Codeberg's end, but we're helping them fix it and/or find the cause.
s/Forgejo

Related to Forgejo. Please also check Forgejo's issue tracker.
s/Forgejo/migration

Migration related issues in Forgejo
s/Pages

Issues related to the Codeberg Pages feature
s/Weblate

Issue is related to the Weblate instance at https://translate.codeberg.org
s/Woodpecker

Woodpecker CI related issue
security

involves improvements to the sites security
service

Add a new service to the Codeberg ecosystem (instead of implementing into Gitea)
upstream

An open issue or pull request to an upstream repository to fix this issue (partially or completely) exists (i.e. Gitea, Forgejo, etc.)
wontfix

Codeberg's current set of contributors are not planning to spend time on delegating this issue.
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
4 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
Codeberg/Community#335
Reference in a new issue
Codeberg/Community
No description provided.
Delete branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?