Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 23/06/18 06:39, James Cloos wrote: >> "T" == writes: > > T> And just extending the keys' validity (as someone proposed in this > T> thread) seems a bad idea too, since the requirement for secure keys > T> evolves over time, as the NSA^H^H^H bad guys buy more GPUs. > > The problem is that

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/23/2018 8:58 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:48:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: On Fri 22 Jun 2018 at 21:12:51 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] Well, I attempted to supply that in https://lists.debian.org/debian

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:48:00PM -0500, David Wright wrote: > On Fri 22 Jun 2018 at 21:12:51 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: [...] > Well, I attempted to supply that in > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2018/06/msg00528.html > but I have no i

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Fri 22 Jun 2018 at 21:12:51 (+0200), to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:39:52PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > > > "T" == writes: > > > > T> And just extending the keys' validity (as someone proposed in this > > T> thread) seems a bad idea too, since the requirement for secu

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 02:39:52PM -0400, James Cloos wrote: > > "T" == writes: > > T> And just extending the keys' validity (as someone proposed in this > T> thread) seems a bad idea too, since the requirement for secure keys > T> evolves over t

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

> "T" == writes: T> And just extending the keys' validity (as someone proposed in this T> thread) seems a bad idea too, since the requirement for secure keys T> evolves over time, as the NSA^H^H^H bad guys buy more GPUs. The problem is that the point of a key's expiration time is that signat

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

rhkra...@gmail.com writes: > On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:25:25 PM Ben Finney wrote: > > In other words: Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's because *no one can > > know* with confidence any more whether that key has been compromised. > > Well, I should study up more on keys and expiration, but isn

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wednesday, June 20, 2018 10:25:25 PM Ben Finney wrote: > In other words: Yes, it's inconvenient, but it's because *no one can > know* with confidence any more whether that key has been compromised. Well, I should study up more on keys and expiration, but isn't the situation much the same befor

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 12:08:11AM +0200, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: [...] > But a user of an archived Debian release wouldn't get an updated apt > which includes this new option. :-) Quite right: the best (s)he can hope for is a workaround. Perhaps th

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 01:06:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > > Since it seems that an archived Debian release is bound to have an > > expired key, would you agree that it'd be useful to have an option

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Adam Cecile writes: > I still thinks it *sucks* to have no alternative then considering > packages signed by an expired key like unsigned packages The key is expired, which means its creator no longer claims it as their key. Any signatures found using that key, can no longer be known to be m

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed 20 Jun 2018 at 11:12:18 (-0400), Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:04:01AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: > > > Anyway, the command is apt-get install -y wget ca-certificates > > > > What happens if you remov

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

writes: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:37:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: >> In theory, [allow-weak=yes] should work, but I haven't actually tested >> this. > > Since it seems that an archived Debian release is bound to have an > expired key, would you agree that it'd be useful to have an option >

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Oh nice, i'll check tomorrow or on Friday, thanks for this suggestion. Could help a lot with third parties repo using weak timestamp also. On June 20, 2018 7:37:19 PM GMT+02:00, Don Armstrong wrote: >On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: >> On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: >> > On

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, 20 Jun 2018, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Since it seems that an archived Debian release is bound to have an > expired key, would you agree that it'd be useful to have an option to > accept such a key? Probably. I would not put my personal development time into if existing features don't alre

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 2018-06-20, wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:04:33PM +, Curt wrote: >> On 2018-06-20, wrote: > > [...] > >> What does this do? >> >> -o Acquire::Check-Valid-Until=false update > > NOTE: this is just from what I understand from the man page, > apt.conf(5). This would disable to dis

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Again, this is aim to disable Release timestamp validation, not related to gpg :/ On June 20, 2018 7:04:33 PM GMT+02:00, Curt wrote: >On 2018-06-20, wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: >> >> [...] >> >>> I still thinks it *sucks* to have no alternative the

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 10:37:19AM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: [...] > Hrm; it looks like apt has its own internal version of gpgv which > actually tests the time. Ah, at last someone in the know :-) Thanks! > In theory, [allow-weak=yes] should wo

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 05:04:33PM +, Curt wrote: > On 2018-06-20, wrote: [...] > What does this do? > > -o Acquire::Check-Valid-Until=false update NOTE: this is just from what I understand from the man page, apt.conf(5). This would disable

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: > On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: > > On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: > > > That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the > > > archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. > > You can still verify them.

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 2018-06-20, wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: > > [...] > >> I still thinks it *sucks* to have no alternative then considering >> packages signed by an expired key like unsigned packages > > That was my impression too: there should be a separate option

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Exactly, thank you. Actually I've been contributing to Debian a lot some time ago and I don't think I've been rude or something, so please show some respect. On June 20, 2018 5:57:45 PM GMT+02:00, "Roberto C. Sánchez" wrote: >On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:16:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: >> On

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:16:46AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:12:18AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > > The output appears to be from a step in a Dockerfile. > > Then the Docker users should know how to use their stupid Dockers and > shouldn't require hand-holding

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:12:18AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: >> The output appears to be from a step in a Dockerfile. > > Then the Docker users should know how to use their stupid Dockers and > shouldn't require hand-holding from non-Docker mailing lists. Is "set it o

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:12:18AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote: > The output appears to be from a step in a Dockerfile. Then the Docker users should know how to use their stupid Dockers and shouldn't require hand-holding from non-Docker mailing lists. Or IRC channels.

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 11:04:01AM -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: > > Anyway, the command is apt-get install -y wget ca-certificates > > What happens if you remove the -y option? > The output appears to be from a step in a Dockerfile. R

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: [...] > I still thinks it *sucks* to have no alternative then considering > packages signed by an expired key like unsigned packages That was my impression too: there should be a separ

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 02:27:24PM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: > Anyway, the command is apt-get install -y wget ca-certificates What happens if you remove the -y option?

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 06/20/2018 02:17 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote: On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:47:39AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote:  ---> Running in 2300490ebb96 You didn't show the command that you typed. That makes it harder to give solutions. W: GPG error: http://archive.debian.org squeeze Release: The following

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 06/20/2018 10:08 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/20/2018 9:55 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 09:43 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 08:47:39AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: >  ---> Running in 2300490ebb96 You didn't show the command that you typed. That makes it harder to give solutions. > W: GPG error: http://archive.debian.org squeeze Release: The following Is a warning. You can tell by the giant W.

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. Y

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/20/2018 9:55 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 09:43 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: Th

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 06/20/2018 09:43 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 09:43:03AM +0200, john doe wrote: [...] > As other as pointed out if the expiration date is not extended on > the key your out of luck! :) > > https://www.debian.org/News/2011/20110209 Yes, exactly. Keys *have* to expire at

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/20/2018 8:47 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/20/2018 08:39 AM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive key, so w

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:22:22AM +0200, Adam Cecile wrote: > Hello, > > > GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired. How should I > handle this properly ? Despite the key is expired, it use to be > valid and I don't like much the idea of

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/19/2018 10:55 PM, Adam Cecile wrote: On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. You can still verify them. Key expiration

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 06/19/2018 10:48 PM, Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. You can still verify them. Key expiration doesn't make existing signatures invalid. [

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

Hello, On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:52:42PM +0200, john doe wrote: > Reading: > > https://wiki.debian.org/DebianKeyring > > you could try: > > "# Fetch a key from the keyring > $ gpg --keyserver keyring.debian.org --recv-key 0xkeyid" It won't help because the problem isn't that the keys are miss

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On Tue, 19 Jun 2018, Adam Cecile wrote: > That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the > archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. You can still verify them. Key expiration doesn't make existing signatures invalid. [Indeed, gpgv doesn't even check for expired

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/19/2018 8:33 PM, john doe wrote: On 6/19/2018 9:22 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: Hello, GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired. How should I handle this properly ? Despite the key is expired, it use to be valid and I don't like much the idea of going for [trusted=yes] for each im

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

That's a pity, don't you think so ? I think Debian should renew the archive key, so we can still verify packages signatures. On June 19, 2018 8:33:21 PM GMT+02:00, john doe wrote: >On 6/19/2018 9:22 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: >> Hello, >> >> >> GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired.

Re: Expired GPG keys of older release

On 6/19/2018 9:22 AM, Adam Cecile wrote: Hello, GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired. How should I handle this properly ? Despite the key is expired, it use to be valid and I don't like much the idea of going for [trusted=yes] for each impacted sources.list entry. Sadly, i

Expired GPG keys of older release

Hello, GPG key that signed the Squeeze repo is now expired. How should I handle this properly ? Despite the key is expired, it use to be valid and I don't like much the idea of going for [trusted=yes] for each impacted sources.list entry. Thanks in advance, Adam.

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Frank, The answers are: 7 7 0 So, it doesn't look like the issue. Thanks for your help anyway. Except, now I am left with a system I can't update properly. Cheers, PEte

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Pete, Maybe one more thing to check. I found a reference to an old bug which seems to suggest the number of keyrings gnupg can handle is limited. How many items does apt-key list show? How many files does /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d contain? If a file /etc/apt/trusted.gpg exists, how big is it? Re

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Op 18-05-17 om 10:44 schreef Peter Miller: So sorry, I was premature - now the messages appear at the end instead of the middle. Sorry to hear that. This is really weird. Your system does have the keys it needs to verify the signatures. These errors make no sense. To make sure the InRelease

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Frank, So sorry, I was premature - now the messages appear at the end instead of the middle. Still a legend, but problem not actually solved. Cheers, Pete

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Frank, Yes, same behaviour from the command line. apt and gnupg were the same versions. Clearing the cache *worked* You are a legend! Thanks so much. Cheers, Pete

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Op 16-05-17 om 11:53 schreef Peter Miller: Frank, Yes, they do, but associated with Wheezy and Jessie, by the looks? /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/debian-archive-wheezy-automatic.gpg -- pub rsa4096 2012-04-27 [SC] [expires: 2020-04-25] A

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Frank, Yes, they do, but associated with Wheezy and Jessie, by the looks? /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/debian-archive-wheezy-automatic.gpg -- pub rsa4096 2012-04-27 [SC] [expires: 2020-04-25] A1BD 8E9D 78F7 FE5C 3E65 D8AF 8B48 AD62 4692 5

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Op 16-05-17 om 01:25 schreef Peter Miller: Frank, It was already installed, and showing version 2014.3 Odd. Do the keys mentioned show up if you enter apt-key list in a terminal? Regards, Frank

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Frank, It was already installed, and showing version 2014.3 Thanks, Pete

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Op 15-05-17 om 10:25 schreef Peter Miller: Sorry, I should have started with the why: when I do an reload in synaptic I get: [snip GPG-errors] Well, the keys mentioned are signing keys from 2012 and 2014, so I would expect them to be present in the current debian-archive-keyring package (an

Re: Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Thanks Frank, Sorry, I should have started with the why: when I do an reload in synaptic I get: GPG error: http://debian.mirror.digitalpacific.com.au/debian stretch InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 8B48AD6246925553 NO_PUBK

Re: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Op 09-05-17 om 05:09 schreef Peter Miller: I am using the http://debian.mirror.digitalpacific.com.au/debian/ mirror for stretch. The url http://debian.mirror.digitalpacific.com.au/debian/dists/stretch/ contains the Release.gpg file. When I download and try to import it I receive an error: The

Fwd: Trouble importing gpg keys in stretch

Hi, I am using the http://debian.mirror.digitalpacific.com.au/debian/ mirror for stretch. The url http://debian.mirror.digitalpa cific.com.au/debian/dists/stretch/ contains the Release.gpg file. When I download and try t

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 07:12 -0400, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > For one thing, I don't think the real JS would send to me as well as > > to the list. > > I wouldn't do it on purpose, anyway :) Or send top-posting HTML formatted mails. Or ... The fake to be Jerry wasn't done very good, but it anyway c

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:11 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 6/10/2014 6:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >>>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkroo

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/10/2014 6:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:51:16 +1000 >> >>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >>> From: ros...@gmail.com >>> CC: deb

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/10/2014 6:51 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >>> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >>> From: ros...@gmail.com >>> CC: debian-us

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 20:51:16 +1000 > >> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >> From: ros...@gmail.com >> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> To: debian-user@lists.debian.o

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:42 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:18:23 +1000 >> Subject: Re: GPG Keys. was Re: Should I install chkrootkit? >> From: ros...@gmail.com >> CC: debian-user@lists.debian.org >> To: debian-user@lists.debian.org > &

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 06/08/2014 06:20 PM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 08 iun 14, 23:37:40, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > >> On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >>> >>> Could you please elaborate on this? >> >> What should I explain? That signing us

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Du, 08 iun 14, 23:37:40, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > Could you please elaborate on this? > > What should I explain? That signing usually is unwanted? It's usually > unwanted, because there is absolutely no reason to sign mails to a > m

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 2014-06-09 at 00:22 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Du, 08 iun 14, 22:05:03, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > > > I will not sign my emails to mailing lists, however, you're mistaken, > > several people subscribed to Debian user sign there mails. Those people > > are not blacklisted, perhaps ther

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Du, 08 iun 14, 22:05:03, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > > I will not sign my emails to mailing lists, however, you're mistaken, > several people subscribed to Debian user sign there mails. Those people > are not blacklisted, perhaps there are kangaroos or penguins in their > kitchen, I don't know, anywa

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Chris Angelico wrote: ...but I would consider it pretty silly if we had to concern ourselves with the possibility that some other debian-user contributor would show up on our doorsteps with an axe. Hm. We should not have to be considering such ridiculous possibilities.

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/8/2014 4:18 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> But hopefully it won't ever come to the point of mattering. It really >>> is silly when people start trying to spoof other people's emails. >>> >> >> Chris, >> >> It's more than silly. In many co

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 6:10 AM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> But hopefully it won't ever come to the point of mattering. It really >> is silly when people start trying to spoof other people's emails. >> > > Chris, > > It's more than silly. In many countries (including the United States), > it can be c

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 6/8/2014 1:20 PM, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU > wrote: >> On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >>> On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU >>> >>> Okay, not many people listed;

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Sun, 2014-06-08 at 17:53 +0200, Bzzz wrote: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 > Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > > > How about Australia? > > Not allowed: if you sign your e-mails,

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 2:22 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: >> > >> > https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU >> >> Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I >> don't know

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

Ahoj, Dňa Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:53:28 +0200 Bzzz napísal: > On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 > Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > > > How about Australia? > > Not allowed: if you sign you

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 02:07:46 +1000 Andrew McGlashan wrote: Hello Andrew, >Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I >don't know any of them personally. You don't have to. So long as there's one close enough to you for it to be convenient to arrange a meeting those pe

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Lu, 09 iun 14, 02:07:46, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Keysigning/Offers#AU > > Okay, not many people listed; I thought there would be many more. I > don't know any of them personally. That's not necessary, the point of

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 9/06/2014 1:56 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Lu, 09 iun 14, 01:43:28, Andrew McGlashan wrote: >> >> And the fingerprint? > > $ gpg --fingerprint EF22341C > pub 4096R/EF22341C 2013-07-28 > Key fingerprint = E44E B88C E21B 858E 3639 7AA4 FFC7 8544 EF22 341C > uid Andrei

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Lu, 09 iun 14, 01:43:28, Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > And the fingerprint? $ gpg --fingerprint EF22341C pub 4096R/EF22341C 2013-07-28 Key fingerprint = E44E B88C E21B 858E 3639 7AA4 FFC7 8544 EF22 341C uid Andrei Mircea POPESCU sub 4096R/5D7DFF29 2013-07-28 > I wro

Re: GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On Mon, 09 Jun 2014 01:43:28 +1000 Andrew McGlashan wrote: > > If one is living in the USA or western Europe getting one's key > > signed shouldn't be too difficult. > > How about Australia? Not allowed: if you sign your e-mails, they'll blacklist you, you'll suffer a kangaroo invasion in your

GPG Keys..... was Re: Should I install chkrootkit?

On 9/06/2014 1:16 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote: > $ gpg --list-sigs EF22341C > pub 4096R/EF22341C 2013-07-28 > uid Andrei Mircea POPESCU > sig 3EF22341C 2013-07-28 Andrei Mircea POPESCU > > sig DEA22DE9 2013-07-28 Andrei Popescu > sig 3EF22341C 2013-07-

Re: repo gpg keys list

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 10:25:00 -0600, Stackpole, Chris wrote: >> A previous run of aptitude update or upgrade showed all my expired > keys >> and new keys. How do I get those info again? Or it has been taken care > of >> automatically? > > I am not sure I understand the question but I think this is

RE: Re: repo gpg keys list

> From: news [mailto:n...@ger.gmane.org] On Behalf Of T o n g > Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 9:47 AM > Subject: Re: repo gpg keys list > > On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:36:04 +, Magnus Therning wrote: > > >> I noticed that the gpg keys were updated for repos, but

Re: repo gpg keys list

On Tue, 24 Feb 2009 07:36:04 +, Magnus Therning wrote: >> I noticed that the gpg keys were updated for repos, but I didn't wrote >> it down before reboot. Anyway to list them now? > > Not sure I understand what you mean, but possibly this is what you are > looking

Re: repo gpg keys list

T o n g wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that the gpg keys were updated for repos, but I didn't wrote it > down before reboot. Anyway to list them now? Not sure I understand what you mean, but possibly this is what you are looking for: # apt-key list /M --

repo gpg keys list

Hi, I noticed that the gpg keys were updated for repos, but I didn't wrote it down before reboot. Anyway to list them now? thanks -- Tong (remove underscore(s) to reply) http://xpt.sourceforge.net/techdocs/ http://xpt.sourceforge.net/tools/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user

Re: GPG keys aren't available on new system [SOLVED]

On Saturday 28 October 2006 11:56, David Nason wrote: > John: > > I read your reply on this question, and I am still having problems like the > one Roberto raised. On one machine, I exported the key, and the result was > an .asc file. I copied that file to the second machine and imported that > f

Re: Re: GPG keys aren't available on new system [SOLVED]

John: I read your reply on this question, and I am still having problems like the one Roberto raised.  On one machine, I exported the key, and the result was an .asc file.  I copied that file to the second machine and imported that file.  It shows that imported key on the list of keys, but Trusted

Re: GPG keys aren't available on new system [SOLVED]

On Thursday 28 September 2006 00:11, Roberto C. Sanchez wrote: > On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:07:03AM +1000, John O'Hagan wrote: > > Hi list, > > > > I have some GPG-encrypted files (using the Kgpg front-end) on one box, > > which I copied to another box, along with the contents of ~/.gnupg and > > /

Re: GPG keys aren't available on new system

On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 12:07:03AM +1000, John O'Hagan wrote: > Hi list, > > I have some GPG-encrypted files (using the Kgpg front-end) on one box, which > I > copied to another box, along with the contents of ~/.gnupg and /etc/gnupg. If > I attempt to decrypt the files on the new box, it fails

GPG keys aren't available on new system

Hi list, I have some GPG-encrypted files (using the Kgpg front-end) on one box, which I copied to another box, along with the contents of ~/.gnupg and /etc/gnupg. If I attempt to decrypt the files on the new box, it fails with the message "Secret key not available". On the old box it's fine;

Re: Using procmail to automatically import GPG keys?

Top posting is antisocial http://ursine.ca/Top_Posting On Monday 08 May 2006 01:04, Jeremy T. Bouse wrote: > Why not just use the feature in GPG to automatically retrieve keys? I am. However, I get eof on every GPG server without getting a key on hkp mode. Email method works just fine, but I h

Re: Using procmail to automatically import GPG keys?

Why not just use the feature in GPG to automatically retrieve keys? Paul Johnson wrote: I use the email method for gpg auto-key-retrieve, and I was wondering...is there a way to deal with importing public keys automagically in procmail instead of doing it by hand? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, ema

Using procmail to automatically import GPG keys?

I use the email method for gpg auto-key-retrieve, and I was wondering...is there a way to deal with importing public keys automagically in procmail instead of doing it by hand? -- Paul Johnson Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED] Jabber: Because it's time to move forward http:/

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:41:59 + Doofus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Willie Wonka wrote: > > > > >On the web I found this; > > > > > >Bug#302692: gnupg-agent: Don't use (undocumented) max-cache-ttl switch > > > >Package: gnupg-

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 09:41:59 + Doofus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Willie Wonka wrote: > > > > >On the web I found this; > > > > > >Bug#302692: gnupg-agent: Don't use (undocumented) max-cache-ttl switch > > > >Package: gnupg-

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

On Friday, 10.03.2006 at 10:34 +, Jon Dowland wrote: > At 1141903950, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:03:51 + Dave Ewart > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > where N is the number of seconds to cache for. I don't remember > > > where this was documented! > > > > pe

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

At 1141903950, Andrew Sackville-West wrote: > On Thu, 9 Mar 2006 19:03:51 + Dave Ewart > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > where N is the number of seconds to cache for. I don't > > remember where this was documented! > > perfect, thanks, and afaict, its not documented, or at > least not very we

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

y there must be thousands of us sending/receiving email both at home and at work, and probably for some folks umpteen other places as well. I've stuck my GPG keys on a USB memory stick which I let gnome-volume-manager automount under /media. Then I use the following configuration options to ma

Re: gpg keys on multiple machines

Willie Wonka wrote: On the web I found this; Bug#302692: gnupg-agent: Don't use (undocumented) max-cache-ttl switch Package: gnupg-agent Version: 1.9.15-5 Severity: normal Hi! If one wants to set default-cache-ttl to a la

  1   2   >