On 01/19/2017 11:47 PM, No wrote: > > Wrong thread > > https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/something-happened-to-activist-email-provider-riseup-but-it-hasnt-been-compromised/ > >
Wasn't the intercept. It was a twitter account of some org affiliated with riseup but thanks for the link. Rr > On 2017-01-20 05:44, Razer wrote: >> >> On 01/19/2017 08:11 PM, grarpamp wrote: >> >>> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13007234 >>> >>> Not as if anything should be thought untouchable. >>> >>> >> >> I saw something on a twitter feed related to them that said they >> would be updating it and not to worry and this info is old. >> >> Have you checked? >> >> Check test 1 2... >> >> gpg --verify canary-statement-signed.txt >> >> gpg: Signature made Mon 15 Aug 2016 10:01:19 PM PDT using RSA key ID >> 139A768E >> gpg: Good signature from "Riseup Networks <[email protected]>" >> gpg: aka "Riseup Treasurer <[email protected]>" >> gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature! >> gpg: There is no indication that the signature belongs to >> the owner. >> Primary key fingerprint: 4E07 9126 8F7C 67EA BE88 F1B0 3043 E2B7 >> 139A 768E >> >> The canary hasn't been updated but the gpg output still shows a good >> sig (assuming) >> >> They could still kill the canary be revoking the key, and they >> haven't done that. >> >> See: https://riseup.net/en/canary >> >> Rr >> >
