On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:40:05AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2023 at 11:23 AM Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 8:20 AM Neal H. Walfield <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> Panu wrote https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878#c126 : > >> > >> > To me the key points here are > >> > 1) there's a lot of obsolete/broken crypto out there > >> > 2) we need better error messages > >> > > >> > Properly dealing with 2) needs an API redesign, but we'll try to work out some sort of bandaid solution. > >> > >> Are better diagnostics sufficient from your point of view, or are you > >> looking for a different solution? > > > > > > I think my question in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878#c125 wasn't really answered, or at least I don't understand the implications. > > *putting on both my FESCo and rpm-sequoia package maintainer hats* > > The issue which was voted on for blocker status by FESCo ("In order to > unblock, RPM must accept SHA-1 hashes and DSA keys for Fedora 38 > (...)") has been resolved. > As far as I can tell, the anydesk case is different. It's not a > problem caused by the new crypto policy - the packages don't use a > SHA-1 signature - but happens because the Sequoia PGP implementation > is stricter about checking signatures for sanity / validity. > If I understand correctly, the packages are signed with a key that > fails validation, so I'm inclined to say "this is not our problem" > (and it also looks like this is an issue that's specific to this > third-party package vendor, in contrast to the original SHA-1 / DSA > issue which affected repositories that are officially endorsed by > Fedora Workstation). I agree. The scope of the issue is fairly narrow, and the underlying issue is an invalid signature made by the anydesk maintainers. We also have a simple command that users can use to work around the issue. The way that this is handled by rpm/dnf can be improved, but we shouldn't block the release on this, and we should also track this in #2170878, it is long enough already. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ 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
