nodata wrote:
> A recent scam involving fake updates to Fedora has highlighted the lack
> of
> signed RPMs for Fedora Core.
What do you mean?
| [angenenr@localhorst packages]$rpm -K samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm
| samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 md5 gpg OK
Fedora Core RPMs (as
livna.org RPMs and fedora.us RPMs and dag's RPMs
and freshrpm's RPMs) *are* cryptographically signed.
> "All official updates for Red Hat products are digitally signed and
> should
> not be installed unless they are correctly signed and the signature is
> verified."
> --
http://www.redhat.com/security/
Look, it even says so in the advisory!
> What does the list think about signed RPMs - are they unnecessary for a
> community project, or are they useful?
You're talking about rawhide?
| [angenenr@localhorst tmp]$rpm -v -K zsh-4.2.0-3.i386.rpm
| zsh-4.2.0-3.i386.rpm:
| Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 4f2a6fd2
| Header SHA1 digest: OK (4bd8d06387d5c7175b60bf200fb84a229d79b7d4)
| MD5 digest: OK (16cc40302ebfd42dc2bc1d7f47cd7ded)
| V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID 4f2a6fd2
Seems to be signed also.
Ralph
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe:
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list