Should Fedora rpms be signed?
ralph+fedora at strg-alt-entf.org
Tue Oct 26 10:25:28 UTC 2004
> A recent scam involving fake updates to Fedora has highlighted the lack of
> signed RPMs for Fedora Core.
What do you mean?
| [angenenr at localhorst packages]$rpm -K samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm
| samba-common-3.0.6-2.fc2.i386.rpm: (sha1) dsa sha1 md5 gpg OK
Fedora Core RPMs (as livna.org RPMs and fedora.us RPMs and dag's RPMs
and freshrpm's RPMs) *are* cryptographically signed.
> "All official updates for Red Hat products are digitally signed and should
> not be installed unless they are correctly signed and the signature is
> -- http://www.redhat.com/security/
Look, it even says so in the advisory!
> What does the list think about signed RPMs - are they unnecessary for a
> community project, or are they useful?
You're talking about rawhide?
| [angenenr at localhorst tmp]$rpm -v -K 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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/test/attachments/20041026/9b29d3c4/attachment.bin
More information about the test