Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #223931 > unrolled thread

Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user

Contents

  Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature SeBarosanul@protonmail.com - 2020-06-24 09:30 +0200
    Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature Reco <recoverym4n@enotuniq.net> - 2020-06-24 09:40 +0200
    Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature "Thomas Schmitt" <scdbackup@gmx.net> - 2020-06-24 09:50 +0200
      Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature john doe <johndoe65534@mail.com> - 2020-06-24 10:30 +0200
    Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-24 14:10 +0200
      Re: Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature davidson <davidson@freevolt.org> - 2020-06-24 14:30 +0200

#223931 — Unable to verify 64-bit live ISO signature

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

Hi! I have been trying to veify the debian live iso signature, but I can't find the command to import the debian gpg keys for the sha256sum.sign file. What is the command?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#223933

	Hi.

On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 07:23:14AM +0000, SeBarosanul@protonmail.com wrote:
> Hi! I have been trying to veify the debian live iso signature, but I
> can't find the command to import the debian gpg keys for the
> sha256sum.sign file. What is the command?

gpg --recv-keys DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B

See also: https://www.debian.org/CD/verify

Reco

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223935

Hi,

SeBarosanul@protonmail.com wrote:
> I can't
> find the command to import the debian gpg keys for the sha256sum.sign file.

I was told that verification works without knowing the key id by:

  gpg --keyserver keyring.debian.org --verify SHA256SUMS.sign SHA256SUMS

but never tested it without having the key already fetched.
I normally use a fetched key with one of the key ids from
  https://www.debian.org/CD/verify
E.g.

  gpg --keyserver keyring.debian.org --recv-keys 6294BE9B

and then

  gpg --verify SHA256SUMS.sign SHA256SUMS


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223938

On 6/24/2020 9:44 AM, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
> Hi,
>
> SeBarosanul@protonmail.com wrote:
>> I can't
>> find the command to import the debian gpg keys for the sha256sum.sign file.
>
> I was told that verification works without knowing the key id by:
>
>    gpg --keyserver keyring.debian.org --verify SHA256SUMS.sign SHA256SUMS
>

I would rather use the below command to automatically fetch the key:

$ gpg --keyserver-options auto-key-retrieve verify SHA512SUMS.sign
SHA512SUMS

--
John Doe

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223949

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 SeBarosanul@protonmail.com wrote:

> Hi! I have been trying to veify the debian live iso signature, but I
> can't find the command to import the debian gpg keys for the
> sha256sum.sign file. What is the command?

OP appears satisfied with answers already received, all of which
appear to involve obtaining keys from a keyserver.

I would supplement those answers as follows:

On a debian system, the debian project's optical media signing keys
appear to live in the file

  /usr/share/keyrings/debian-role-keys.gpg

which is supplied by package "debian-keyring".

So on debian, if you have

  A. debian-keyring installed (and gpg as well),

  B. a checksum file SUMFILE, and

  C. a file SUMFILE.sign, allegedly containing a signature for the
     checksums in SUMFILE

then you can find out

   1. whether SUMFILE.sign is indeed a signature for SUMFILE (meaning
      you may remove the qualifier "allegedly" from (C) above), and

   2. whether that signature was made by somebody in control of a key
      that the debian project trusts to sign its releases,

by examining the output of this command:

  $ gpg --verify --keyring /usr/share/keyrings/debian-role-keys.gpg SUMFILE.sign SUMFILE

(Of course, substitute "SHA256SUMS" or "SHA512SUMS" or whatever, as
appropriate, for "SUMFILE".)

Here are three mutually exclusive cases, of what a system may tell
you, depending on how your reality conforms to conditions (1) and (2)
above.


SUMFILE signed, and by debian role key: When both (1) and (2) are YES

  gpg: Signature made Sat 09 May 2020 08:17:30 PM EDT
  gpg:                using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B
  gpg: Good signature from "Debian CD signing key <debian-cd@lists.debian.org>" [marginal]
  gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with sufficiently trusted signatures!
  gpg:          It is not certain that the signature belongs to the owner.
  Primary key fingerprint: DF9B 9C49 EAA9 2984 3258  9D76 DA87 E80D 6294 BE9B

You were told all is fine, so far as the system can tell.


SUMFILE not signed: When (1) is NO but (2) is still YES

  gpg: Signature made Sat 09 May 2020 08:17:30 PM EDT
  gpg:                using RSA key DF9B9C49EAA9298432589D76DA87E80D6294BE9B
  gpg: BAD signature from "Debian CD signing key <debian-cd@lists.debian.org>" [marginal]

That is your system telling you SUMFILE.sign is *not* actually a
signature for SUMFILE. It is possible that SUMFILE has been tampered
with.


SIGNING KEY UNKNOWN, bailing out: When (2) is NO

  gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Jun 2020 06:58:06 AM EDT
  gpg:                using RSA key 2E3F09D22FFDC4ABF32DF441EB18A1C0111F5F49
  gpg: Can't check signature: No public key

All is not well. SUMFILE was not signed by a debian role key (or, at
least, not by one in the keyring you specified).

For all you know, SUMFILE.sign could contain the Hamburglar's
signature! Or Marilyn Monroe's!

And it remains unknown in this case whether (1) is YES or NO. In other
words, we don't know whether SUMFILE.sign contains *anyone*'s
signature for SUMFILE.


If I have said anything incorrect or misleading above, I hope somebody
will correct me.

-- 
Firstly, you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to
form any opinion of your own respecting their propriety. Secondly, you
must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and
thirdly, you must hate a Frenchman, as you do the devil. --H. Nelson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#223951

On Wed, 24 Jun 2020 davidson wrote:

One clarification...

[dd]
> Here are three mutually exclusive cases, of what a system may tell
> you, depending on how your reality conforms to conditions (1) and (2)
> above.

...regarding the third case:

> SIGNING KEY UNKNOWN, bailing out: When (2) is NO
>
> gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Jun 2020 06:58:06 AM EDT
> gpg:                using RSA key 2E3F09D22FFDC4ABF32DF441EB18A1C0111F5F49
> gpg: Can't check signature: No public key
>
> All is not well. SUMFILE was not signed by a debian role key (or, at
                    ^^^^^^^
> least, not by one in the keyring you specified).

I should restate that last bit more clearly:

  "SUMFILE.sign does not contain a signature from a debian role key"
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^

> For all you know, SUMFILE.sign could contain the Hamburglar's
> signature! Or Marilyn Monroe's!
>
> And it remains unknown in this case whether (1) is YES or NO. In other
> words, we don't know whether SUMFILE.sign contains *anyone*'s
> signature for SUMFILE.
>
>
> If I have said anything incorrect or misleading above, I hope somebody
> will correct me.

-- 
Firstly, you must always implicitly obey orders, without attempting to
form any opinion of your own respecting their propriety. Secondly, you
must consider every man your enemy who speaks ill of your king; and
thirdly, you must hate a Frenchman, as you do the devil. --H. Nelson

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user

csiph-web