Re: Unable to install locally built rpms
On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 19:39 -0600, John Morris wrote: > > Second solution is to revert Fedora's new paranoia that will detonate > any old package. "sudo update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY" and get on > with life for another Fedora release cycle... then the madmen will break > things again. It is a cryptoweenie thing, break anything more than a > few years old while autistically screeching "but it is INSECRE!" "Security researchers have achieved the first real-world collision attack against the SHA-1 hash function, producing two different PDF files with the same SHA-1 signature. This shows that the algorithm's use for security-sensitive functions should be discontinued as soon as possible." That was from *2017*. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3173616/the-sha1-hash-function-is-now-completely-unsafe.html -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Unable to install locally built rpms
On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 20:07 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > Am 01.03.23 um 16:31 schrieb Adam Williamson: > > On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 09:10 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > on f38, I am unable to install any locally built package (signed > > > with a > > > local key, I have been using for many years): > > > > "Many years" is likely the problem. It's probably using SHA-1 or > > DSA. > > See, for e.g., > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878 . Those are now > > known to be insecure. > > > > That bug covers some awkward problems with widely-used third parties > > still using insecure keys to sign their packages, which likely means > > this will get put off (one way or another) to at least Fedora 39. > > But > > for your own locally built packages, which are under your control, > > you > > can solve it permanently right now: generate a new key using a > > secure > > algorithm, and re-sign your packages with that. > > > > > What are people supposed to do? > > > > See above. > > Cf. the discussion on *-devel. > > Due to this list not being open, I do not see any sense trying to > furtherly discussing this issue here. > > Only one point concerning you and this list: It seems obvious to me, > this change was not tested at all. The effects of this change are > desasterous, Annoying, yes. Disastrous, no. Easiest solution is the one already discussed, your old key is never going to be accepted again so it is time to make a new one. Solved. Second solution is to revert Fedora's new paranoia that will detonate any old package. "sudo update-crypto-policies --set LEGACY" and get on with life for another Fedora release cycle... then the madmen will break things again. It is a cryptoweenie thing, break anything more than a few years old while autistically screeching "but it is INSECRE!" Be thankful, as bad as Fedora can be, OpenSSH is worse; when they do the "INSECURE!" screeching they eventually remove every line of code that supported the now insecure crypto so you can't even rebuild from source to be able to still talk to that old box in a corner. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Unable to install locally built rpms
On Wed, 2023-03-01 at 20:07 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > Am 01.03.23 um 16:31 schrieb Adam Williamson: > > On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 09:10 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > on f38, I am unable to install any locally built package (signed with a > > > local key, I have been using for many years): > > > > "Many years" is likely the problem. It's probably using SHA-1 or DSA. > > See, for e.g., > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878 . Those are now > > known to be insecure. > > > > That bug covers some awkward problems with widely-used third parties > > still using insecure keys to sign their packages, which likely means > > this will get put off (one way or another) to at least Fedora 39. But > > for your own locally built packages, which are under your control, you > > can solve it permanently right now: generate a new key using a secure > > algorithm, and re-sign your packages with that. > > > > > What are people supposed to do? > > > > See above. > > Cf. the discussion on *-devel. > > Due to this list not being open, I do not see any sense trying to > furtherly discussing this issue here. > > Only one point concerning you and this list: It seems obvious to me, > this change was not tested at all. The effects of this change are > desasterous, Well, it was tested. That's why there's a bug report. We don't have a secret Fedora where we try things behind a dark curtain and only put them out to the public if they work. That's not how Fedora works (and I doubt you'd like it if it did). Fedora is open, which means Fedora development is open, which means the way we test changes like this is...we make them (in Rawhide and/or Branched, obviously, not in stable releases!) and then anyone who's interested - whether they work for RH or not, whether they're part of Fedora QA or not - gets to try them out. That's what happened in this case, and folks (from all groups above) noticed this problem, so now we have a bug report and FESCo is on it and we're getting Google to fix their Chromium RPMs and the change is getting delayed. Isn't that how this should work? -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Unable to install locally built rpms
Am 01.03.23 um 16:31 schrieb Adam Williamson: On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 09:10 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: Hi, on f38, I am unable to install any locally built package (signed with a local key, I have been using for many years): "Many years" is likely the problem. It's probably using SHA-1 or DSA. See, for e.g., https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878 . Those are now known to be insecure. That bug covers some awkward problems with widely-used third parties still using insecure keys to sign their packages, which likely means this will get put off (one way or another) to at least Fedora 39. But for your own locally built packages, which are under your control, you can solve it permanently right now: generate a new key using a secure algorithm, and re-sign your packages with that. What are people supposed to do? See above. Cf. the discussion on *-devel. Due to this list not being open, I do not see any sense trying to furtherly discussing this issue here. Only one point concerning you and this list: It seems obvious to me, this change was not tested at all. The effects of this change are desasterous, Ralf ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: Unable to install locally built rpms
On Tue, 2023-02-28 at 09:10 +0100, Ralf Corsépius wrote: > Hi, > > on f38, I am unable to install any locally built package (signed with a > local key, I have been using for many years): "Many years" is likely the problem. It's probably using SHA-1 or DSA. See, for e.g., https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2170878 . Those are now known to be insecure. That bug covers some awkward problems with widely-used third parties still using insecure keys to sign their packages, which likely means this will get put off (one way or another) to at least Fedora 39. But for your own locally built packages, which are under your control, you can solve it permanently right now: generate a new key using a secure algorithm, and re-sign your packages with that. > What are people supposed to do? See above. -- Adam Williamson (he/him/his) Fedora QA Fedora Chat: @adamwill:fedora.im | Mastodon: @ad...@fosstodon.org https://www.happyassassin.net ___ test mailing list -- test@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to test-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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/test@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
