Re: Inactive packagers to be removed after the F37 release

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



V Fri, Sep 16, 2022 at 05:30:13PM +0000, Tommy Nguyen napsal(a):
> With that being said, if a GPG key would be compromised, wouldn't it
> result in an error when trying to update the package? An end user would
> then report the bug, someone would see that the key does not match the
> signature in the gpg-distribution package, signalling that it's
> compromised.

Compromised GPG key means something else. It means that you have a valid
signature for a package made with a genuine Fedora packager's key. But not
made by the Fedora packager. You won't recognize a compromised key by checking
the signatures.

You probably wanted to write a compromised dist-git account. In that case the
GPG signature would help.

-- Petr

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux