Re: Should Fedora rpms be signed?

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

 



Le lundi 01 novembre 2004 à 11:47 -0500, Peter Jones a écrit :
> On Sat, 2004-10-30 at 01:11 +0200, Matias Féliciano wrote:
> 
> > Since rawhide have some unsigned packages I like to know which package
> > is not signed and I sign them with my key (so yum always have
> > "gpgcheck=1") :
> > I mirror rawhide in the i386 directory with rsync, and then I sign
> > package that miss gpg.
> > Note, I don't sign (that is, change) any package in i386 directory
> > (rsync does not like this).
> 
> When somebody organizes a man-in-the-middle attack between you and
> whichever site you rsync rawhide from , you sign the packages anyway.
> Can you see how this is a big problem?
> 

I don't understand your point.
If you think what I am doing is completely useless, you are right.

I just enjoy a placebo effect :-)

Second point, right now there are three unsigned packages :
rpmdb-fedora-3-0.20041101.i386.rpm
gthumb-2.4.2-4.i386.rpm
fedora-release-3-rawhide.noarch.rpm

Should I set "gpgcheck=0" in yum.conf only for these three package ?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=


[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]