dearsky/pico-openpgp
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 10 Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases 15 Wiki Activity

Pico commissionner not working #24

New Issue
Open
opened 2024-12-07 05:59:28 +08:00 by Tartasprint · 15 comments
Tartasprint commented 2024-12-07 05:59:28 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Hello, first of all thank you for your amazing work !
I was able to set up a FIDO key on Pico2 following the instructions on picokeys.com:

  1. download the firmware and write it from the getting started page
  2. use the commisionner
    I tried to follow the same steps with the OpenGPG and HSM firmware, but the commissionner/browser/OS is not detecting the device properly. I am on Windows, and I tried both Chrome and Firefox (the latter only with WebAuthn).

Kleopatra (a GUI for gpg on windows) successfully detects the "smart card". I tried to use several trivial PINs, before finding out that the default PIN from the HSM firmware worked also on OpenGPG firmware. The behaviour is different, Kleopatra prompts for changes instead of saying "Incorrect PIN". At the last step I get "Conditions d'utilisations non-satisfaites" which translates to "Usage condition are not met/satisfied".

Did I miss a step between writing the firmware and commissionning it ? I did try to unplug and replug, even if it is not supposed be needed.

Hello, first of all thank you for your amazing work ! I was able to set up a FIDO key on Pico2 following the instructions on picokeys.com: 1) download the firmware and write it from the getting started page 2) use the commisionner I tried to follow the same steps with the OpenGPG and HSM firmware, but the commissionner/browser/OS is not detecting the device properly. I am on Windows, and I tried both Chrome and Firefox (the latter only with WebAuthn). Kleopatra (a GUI for gpg on windows) successfully detects the "smart card". I tried to use several trivial PINs, before finding out that the default PIN from the HSM firmware worked also on OpenGPG firmware. The behaviour is different, Kleopatra prompts for changes instead of saying "Incorrect PIN". At the last step I get "Conditions d'utilisations non-satisfaites" which translates to "Usage condition are not met/satisfied". Did I miss a step between writing the firmware and commissionning it ? I did try to unplug and replug, even if it is not supposed be needed.
polhenarejos commented 2025-01-15 17:50:00 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Commissioner uses WebUSB and it requires permission from your browser. Check whether you granted the proper access.

Commissioner uses WebUSB and it requires permission from your browser. Check whether you granted the proper access.
nmwael commented 2025-02-26 06:25:41 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I seem to have the same problem, on pico_openpgp_waveshare_rp2040_plus_16mb-3.2 , version 3.4 is not booting on my board.

Attached screenshot of ui.
Image

I seem to have the same problem, on pico_openpgp_waveshare_rp2040_plus_16mb-3.2 , version 3.4 is not booting on my board. Attached screenshot of ui. ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/9fb49e84-1735-4059-a04e-ff9b14c0ccad)
MuRongBAD commented 2025-03-22 23:06:40 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

The same problem .I was using esp32-s3 and after commissioning the vid/pid turned 0000:0000 no matter what the preset vendor is. @polhenarejos Could you help check where the problem is? thank you! <3 (after flashing the vid/pid is normal FEFF:FCFD)

The same problem .I was using esp32-s3 and after commissioning the vid/pid turned 0000:0000 no matter what the preset vendor is. @polhenarejos Could you help check where the problem is? thank you! <3 (after flashing the vid/pid is normal FEFF:FCFD)
MuRongBAD commented 2025-03-22 23:08:54 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

btw ,Can I change the vid/pid without the commissioner for esp32-s3? (like pico-fido)(because I dont know how to build for esp32)

btw ,Can I change the vid/pid without the commissioner for esp32-s3? (like pico-fido)(because I dont know how to build for esp32)
polhenarejos commented 2025-03-23 00:18:17 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

You need to use development firmware.

You need to use development firmware.
petrm commented 2025-03-28 06:46:20 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

The same problem .I was using esp32-s3 and after commissioning the vid/pid turned 0000:0000 no matter what the preset vendor is. @polhenarejos Could you help check where the problem is? thank you! <3 (after flashing the vid/pid is normal FEFF:FCFD)

I am facing the same issue on rp2040, after using the commissioner the vid:pid is 0000:0000. Works fine with pico fido.

> The same problem .I was using esp32-s3 and after commissioning the vid/pid turned 0000:0000 no matter what the preset vendor is. [@polhenarejos](https://github.com/polhenarejos) Could you help check where the problem is? thank you! <3 (after flashing the vid/pid is normal FEFF:FCFD) I am facing the same issue on rp2040, after using the commissioner the vid:pid is 0000:0000. Works fine with pico fido.
mtorromeo commented 2025-04-02 03:03:53 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Same issue with a rp2040 zero. The only discernible thing accomplished by the commissioner is turning the LED from red to green until the device is reset.

Same issue with a rp2040 zero. The only discernible thing accomplished by the commissioner is turning the LED from red to green until the device is reset.
mtorromeo commented 2025-04-02 04:00:45 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

The issue is not limited to the commissioner, actually the problem is that the firmware is not working correctly at all.

I tried compiling it by myself and the only difference was that the LED did not work at all (I am sure I am missing something), but the device was still recognized but with the wrong VID:PID 0000:0000, and this is the symptom of the real issue, since the default VID:PID is supposed to be FEFF:FCFD even when not using the commissioner.

So I tried to flash the older stable releases, one at a time, hoping to find one that worked, and I did.

The first working release was 2.0, which got me the blinking green led and the proper lsusb listing:

Bus 003 Device 016: ID feff:fcfd Pol Henarejos Pico Key

Something after that changed, and any release from 3.0 onward results in red LED and 0000:0000.

The issue is not limited to the commissioner, actually the problem is that the firmware is not working correctly at all. I tried compiling it by myself and the only difference was that the LED did not work at all (I am sure I am missing something), but the device was still recognized but with the wrong VID:PID `0000:0000`, and this is the symptom of the real issue, since the default VID:PID is supposed to be `FEFF:FCFD` even when not using the commissioner. So I tried to flash the older stable releases, one at a time, hoping to find one that worked, and I did. The first working release was 2.0, which got me the blinking green led and the proper lsusb listing: ``` Bus 003 Device 016: ID feff:fcfd Pol Henarejos Pico Key ``` Something after that changed, and any release from 3.0 onward results in red LED and `0000:0000`.
mtorromeo commented 2025-04-02 04:09:34 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Actually, a small correction: the last working release is v2.2 not v2.0. Sorry about that.

Actually, a small correction: the last working release is v2.2 not v2.0. Sorry about that.
mtorromeo commented 2025-04-02 05:14:15 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

I bisected commits from v2.2 to v3.0 and when I found the commit that updated pico-keys-sdk I started bisecting those commits and found the culprit in polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@0638409ff8

Starting from the commit the vid:pid became 0000:0000.

Before that the device was recognized used 1234:5678, even when led became solid red, or blinking red before that, and solid even cyan at one point.

lsusb output at commit polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@802df9e705:

Bus 003 Device 085: ID 1234:5678 Brain Actuated Technologies Pico Key

lsusb output at commit polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@0638409ff8:

Bus 003 Device 087: ID 0000:0000 Pol Henarejos Pico Key

It's interesting that the device manufactured also changed between commits of pico-keys-sdk.

I bisected commits from v2.2 to v3.0 and when I found the commit that updated pico-keys-sdk I started bisecting those commits and found the culprit in polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@0638409ff82cb1327283bd6795bc26b68b05c936 Starting from the commit the vid:pid became `0000:0000`. Before that the device was recognized used `1234:5678`, even when led became solid red, or blinking red before that, and solid even cyan at one point. lsusb output at commit polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@802df9e70534e8565d9e9547ed9f8bd2dac762ea: ``` Bus 003 Device 085: ID 1234:5678 Brain Actuated Technologies Pico Key ``` lsusb output at commit polhenarejos/pico-keys-sdk@0638409ff82cb1327283bd6795bc26b68b05c936: ``` Bus 003 Device 087: ID 0000:0000 Pol Henarejos Pico Key ``` It's interesting that the device manufactured also changed between commits of pico-keys-sdk.
nmwael commented 2025-08-19 13:27:18 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Just to state it works fine, however there are problems when using a windows pc (chrome, IE, firefox), patching directly from an android phone seems to work.

Just to state it works fine, however there are problems when using a windows pc (chrome, IE, firefox), patching directly from an android phone seems to work.
damko commented 2025-12-27 21:13:54 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

btw the commissioner is no more online

https://www.picokeys.com/pico-commissioner/

gives "It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help."

btw the commissioner is no more online https://www.picokeys.com/pico-commissioner/ gives "It seems we can’t find what you’re looking for. Perhaps searching can help."
wlatendresse commented 2025-12-28 02:39:34 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

btw the commissioner is no more online

How did you manage to figure that out after at least 7 threads on exactly this topic?

> btw the commissioner is no more online > How did you manage to figure that out after at least 7 threads on exactly this topic?
damko commented 2025-12-28 16:28:58 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

btw the commissioner is no more online

How did you manage to figure that out after at least 7 threads on exactly this topic?

Apologies - I didn't mean to be rude or to add pressure. I'm new to this project and I haven't read all the issues.

I simply thought to drop a line in case it went unnoticed. Behind my post there was nothing but the will to help.

> > btw the commissioner is no more online > > How did you manage to figure that out after at least 7 threads on exactly this topic? Apologies - I didn't mean to be rude or to add pressure. I'm new to this project and I haven't read all the issues. I simply thought to drop a line in case it went unnoticed. Behind my post there was nothing but the will to help.
👍 1
wlatendresse commented 2025-12-28 18:39:08 +08:00 (Migrated from github.com)
Copy Link

Apologies - I didn't mean to be rude or to add pressure. I'm new to this project and I haven't read all the issues.

And yet, the problem is growing that important information on the internet gets lost in the noise of trivialities.

Read before you maybe post. Especially since every interested person is notified of every trivial matter.

> > Apologies - I didn't mean to be rude or to add pressure. I'm new to this project and I haven't read all the issues. And yet, the problem is growing that important information on the internet gets lost in the noise of trivialities. Read before you maybe post. Especially since every interested person is notified of every trivial matter.
👎 1
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
bug
Something isn't working
 documentation
Improvements or additions to documentation
 duplicate
This issue or pull request already exists
 enhancement
New feature or request
 good first issue
Good for newcomers
 help wanted
Extra attention is needed
 invalid
This doesn't seem right
 question
Further information is requested
 wontfix
This will not be worked on
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
dearsky
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: dearsky/pico-openpgp#24
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?