From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: bo0od Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2021 05:43:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: report 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guix@gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.161777417220778 (code B ref -1); Wed, 07 Apr 2021 05:43:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 7 Apr 2021 05:42:52 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42855 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lU0xn-0005P4-OR for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 01:42:51 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:41112) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lU0xl-0005Ow-Ny for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 01:42:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:44444) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU0xl-0001tm-HK for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 01:42:49 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:47426) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lU0xj-0002dC-Ee for bug-guix@gnu.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2021 01:42:49 -0400 Received: from fews1.riseup.net (fews1-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FFYFc6t57zDqMc for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:42:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1617774164; bh=tjcQVqNcMxQ91FWrAHPOsxiaTyOb3eSPo90mf1oWVGs=; h=To:From:Subject:Date:From; b=LC8Ssxu+EPUZw52U4Mx9WE9lvivGzdYHYutp/OpT12KaQ+IQ3M0Jn4rVbqNCrdIk0 NrewaGegMWPDzXHMcn9h5+QWRdteZwyHMg8r0Yjzv99lWUU/h1/cXofwQ1Rc2DY0CJ m1fRG9KyQf3tw9DO0WNl38oykSxECHjgkfY280DI= X-Riseup-User-ID: 3562AA13288FE31EE3BF0957944D14FA07FD8A0A01DC11CEEB10C52951CE846E Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FFYFc1FbKz5vZN for ; Tue, 6 Apr 2021 22:42:43 -0700 (PDT) From: bo0od Message-ID: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2021 05:42:40 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=bo0od@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Hi There, I see there is only .sig provided: https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/ Its better to provide more than one way of verification e.g: Qubes: https://www.qubes-os.org/downloads/ Whonix: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/VirtualBox/XFCE ...etc ThX! From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: Leo Famulari Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:04:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: bo0od Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.16179014299148 (code B ref 47634); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:04:01 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2021 17:03:49 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48111 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUY4K-0002NT-Cf for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:03:49 -0400 Received: from out1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.25]:48293) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUY4H-0002NC-4w for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:03:47 -0400 Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 219AC5C0129; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:03:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:03:39 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=famulari.name; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=mesmtp; bh=GkNeujkoDyCe9guw/+hwinc3 PwFB1/i8uOTz8b19AKU=; b=11tAU6P/74jMJ395ixuv8D1ad6Ykix40SIPZviE9 +1CGuRPgF+Ot0acS5aNvqLhDI3lqwETkB4lbW4781kc31Dzt8HNpjHSl+1RLpSus Zuoyj4nnI/MNapXnLtDKOo3hMm5XQwbvtijcAMWRgkdtnL1aha00Q1uRIbacp3ea a00= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm2; bh=GkNeuj koDyCe9guw/+hwinc3PwFB1/i8uOTz8b19AKU=; b=tAkhWdXUAZNQTgzdJMxXX/ apO13daHjgVdoNxvzL3Ns3egKA5TGNXMCutbSpoRvRosAIH7Dh7Ryh6UrXfSm+/y /8LIX2Q9BP5Rwp+ozDCmpUls1p8ZNCDbAsM3DDiowzyw34OMWhlRWY4BtaNg/wDz c8vrc4y7g5hm2neUFa4oBjLC9xXd2OuhQIjua1VmqO1v16z93Sfd+g/GWJote5ky 42DZ3x5XM7G2r7j1nwq4oGt6IkTTXESNKFWFEVFxSZx1xuj7YTBA2etuK7Oz6Yj+ GAB2vLUW1wNmk73B7l4QeOpbSm1f86sFgi76s8LvOg8KQQg4PbvybO3p9HP8nbSA == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrudejledguddutdcutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttd ertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefnvghoucfhrghmuhhlrghrihcuoehlvghosehfrghmuhhl rghrihdrnhgrmhgvqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpedvvddugefffeeitddthfefvdeuhf fgkeeikeegkeevteeghfeftefggeeuudffieenucffohhmrghinhepghhnuhdrohhrghen ucfkphepuddttddruddurdduieelrdduudeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenuc frrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomheplhgvohesfhgrmhhulhgrrhhirdhnrghmvg X-ME-Proxy: Received: from localhost (pool-100-11-169-118.phlapa.fios.verizon.net [100.11.169.118]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 853C21080066; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:03:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 13:03:36 -0400 From: Leo Famulari Message-ID: References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> X-Spam-Score: 1.3 (+) X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "debbugs.gnu.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see the administrator of that system for details. Content preview: On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:42:40AM +0000, bo0od wrote: > Hi There, > > I see there is only .sig provided: > > https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/ > > Its better to provide more than one way of verificat [...] Content analysis details: (1.3 points, 10.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.0 SPF_HELO_PASS SPF: HELO matches SPF record -0.7 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW RBL: Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust [66.111.4.25 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [66.111.4.25 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 2.0 PDS_TONAME_EQ_TOLOCAL_SHORT Short body with To: name matches everything in local email 0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:42:40AM +0000, bo0od wrote: > Hi There, > > I see there is only .sig provided: > > https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/ > > Its better to provide more than one way of verification e.g: Why? From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: bo0od Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:35:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Leo Famulari Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.161790327812214 (code B ref 47634); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 17:35:01 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2021 17:34:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48141 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUYY9-0003Aw-WC for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:34:38 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:60020) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUYY7-0003Ae-Hr for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 13:34:36 -0400 Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FGT0P6gfyzDv3Q; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:34:29 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1617903270; bh=Xig2NgsO/VY3vtbrSLPKvdJHhwTbBfULFVLWesIUVj4=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=hKTLLkib0N3/r+w88uqGPVFK2lcWnU0kL1FZOsardfUYuH/sbCeS+xPSREbiRGkXX 3CRDbpGmw0m6rUhmd4b4k1qE8jw2x5mHOs/JItWeRFELoh888b0L1lW23U68ntfwGs Ar/VGS1fll1NKTDH7Lm7w2rkzmtTdaQlph/hzQQI= X-Riseup-User-ID: 98600F932BF2A4BBA0AD1ABD71EDA802A67F0CACCD8C21AC4D41F21DC8F65990 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FGT0M3t1Gz1yBT; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 10:34:26 -0700 (PDT) References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> From: bo0od Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2021 17:34:20 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) This is nicely written by Qubes documentation: https://www.qubes-os.org/security/verifying-signatures/ Leo Famulari: > On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 05:42:40AM +0000, bo0od wrote: >> Hi There, >> >> I see there is only .sig provided: >> >> https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/ >> >> Its better to provide more than one way of verification e.g: > > Why? > From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: Carlo Zancanaro Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2021 22:58:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org, bo0od@riseup.net, leo@famulari.name X-Debbugs-Original-To: bug-guix@gnu.org, bo0od , Leo Famulari X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.161792263218881 (code B ref -1); Thu, 08 Apr 2021 22:58:02 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 8 Apr 2021 22:57:12 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48495 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUdaK-0004uT-4p for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:57:12 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:47470) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUdaI-0004uK-6D for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:57:11 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:59336) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUdaH-0004F2-U2 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:57:09 -0400 Received: from zancanaro.com.au ([45.76.117.151]:44080) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUdaG-0006xa-7a for bug-guix@gnu.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2021 18:57:09 -0400 Received: by zancanaro.com.au (Postfix, from userid 116) id E92AF33F19; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:57:04 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on vultr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (unknown [120.18.27.231]) by zancanaro.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F292533EFB; Thu, 8 Apr 2021 22:57:02 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 08:57:00 +1000 From: Carlo Zancanaro User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> Message-ID: <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=45.76.117.151; envelope-from=carlo@zancanaro.id.au; helo=zancanaro.com.au X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) On 9 April 2021 3:34:20 am AEST, bo0od wrote: >This is nicely written by Qubes documentation: > >https://www=2Equbes-os=2Eorg/security/verifying-signatures/ From=20that page: > If you=E2=80=99ve already verified the signatures on the ISO directly, t= hen verifying digests is not necessary=2E Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? What is the benefit to providing the key (=2Easc) and hashes (=2EDIGESTS)?= The page you linked provides rationale for providing and checking digital = signatures, but we already provide them=2E Carlo From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: bo0od Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:19:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: carlo@zancanaro.id.au, 47634@debbugs.gnu.org, leo@famulari.name X-Debbugs-Original-To: Carlo Zancanaro , bug-guix@gnu.org, Leo Famulari X-Debbugs-Original-Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B.161800668820168 (code B ref -1); Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:19:01 +0000 Received: (at submit) by debbugs.gnu.org; 9 Apr 2021 22:18:08 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51111 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUzS3-0005FD-Vg for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:18:08 -0400 Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]:33686) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lUzS0-0005Ew-Gl for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:18:04 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49700) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUzS0-0000N1-Bp for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:18:04 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:38578) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lUzRx-0005gV-VJ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 18:18:03 -0400 Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FHCF14BTtzDxXC; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:17:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1618006677; bh=s1EecHYls60DMb2vBXwkOqttRT7+U9XP39kromcOkfM=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=CeNbrrOBchrOuRQG+T6EWWH0GNfjzA0aVKo09FkRysKGjJoG8a3T9eB9Dx1WzsG6m piyQ0lj4ckkn8AP0vGca1StdN7RCfm3T6UazMcsf25x/seod/VYRI9bcJl6F8YqRBN NeO/PJZsTVOcWj6LH7AMEgqNSJVHcdXbVDmE1ZnE= X-Riseup-User-ID: 0596DD0585F00CFE4DE771D1FB41463CB3405FDDB6396A142235EDE715E675EE Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FHCDy2LPZz1yBT; Fri, 9 Apr 2021 15:17:53 -0700 (PDT) References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> From: bo0od Message-ID: <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2021 22:17:47 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.252.153.129; envelope-from=bo0od@riseup.net; helo=mx1.riseup.net X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) > Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? Well this is simple question but the answer is sorta deeper, So i will answer with yes and no: yes signatures are sufficient but signatures with PGP has problems, In the suggestion above i didnt suggest to diverse the signing methods (like for example using signify alongside with gpg) but just adding extra steps better than one (more convenience to say that everything is going smoothly). To understand what im talking about i suggest to read: Why PGP on expiration time: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/OpenPGP#Issues_with_PGP Discussion which might consider deprecate the usage of PGP by debian: https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Apt/Spec/AptSign Whonix already using signify alongside with PGP: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Signify Also there are challenges to the concept itself: https://www.whonix.org/wiki/Verifying_Software_Signatures#Conceptual_Challenges_in_Digital_Signatures_Verification So I hope by complete reading that you will come to the conclusion that either provide as much as possible from extra verification (like .asc,DIGESTS,SHA512...etc) or provide alternative verification along side with the traditional one like using signify or using something like signify and thats it. (i think providing both methods like pgp/signify is the best way which suits everybody) > > > On 9 April 2021 3:34:20 am AEST, bo0od wrote: >> This is nicely written by Qubes documentation: >> >> https://www.qubes-os.org/security/verifying-signatures/ > > From that page: > >> If you’ve already verified the signatures on the ISO directly, then verifying digests is not necessary. > > Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? > > What is the benefit to providing the key (.asc) and hashes (.DIGESTS)? The page you linked provides rationale for providing and checking digital signatures, but we already provide them. > > Carlo > From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: Carlo Zancanaro Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:28:01 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: bo0od Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.161802165818962 (code B ref 47634); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:28:01 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2021 02:27:38 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:51222 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lV3LW-0004vm-59 for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:27:38 -0400 Received: from zancanaro.com.au ([45.76.117.151]:42592) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lV3LU-0004vd-CT for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2021 22:27:37 -0400 Received: by zancanaro.com.au (Postfix, from userid 116) id 5714633F68; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:27:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on vultr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from jolteon (n175-37-174-100.bla2.nsw.optusnet.com.au [175.37.174.100]) by zancanaro.com.au (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A69A33F36; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 02:27:33 +0000 (UTC) References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> User-agent: mu4e 1.4.15; emacs 27.2 From: Carlo Zancanaro In-reply-to: <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:27:32 +1000 Message-ID: <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed X-Spam-Score: -0.0 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.0 (-) Hi bo0od! On Sat, Apr 10 2021, bo0od wrote: >> Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? > > Well this is simple question but the answer is sorta deeper, So > i will answer with yes and no: > > yes signatures are sufficient but signatures with PGP has > problems... I grant that this might be true, but whether or not to use PGP is a different issue to whether cryptographic signatures are sufficient to verify downloads. If we compare the projects you've shown as examples: - Qubes provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key - Whonix provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key For verification purposes the hashes only provide transport integrity - they don't provide any mechanism to verify where the content came from, and because they're stored next to the images it's likely that any attacker who could manipulate the images could also manipulate the hashes. The signature provides a better guarantee that the image contains what the project intends to distribute (i.e. that nobody has compromised image itself). In this instance, the hash provides no significant additional value over the signature. If we look at the Tor project (who, I hope you will agree, care about security), their download page[1] only provides links to PGP signatures as their sole method of verification. I'm not convinced there's much value to add anything beyond the signatures, and I think there is some cost. Having multiple verification options makes the download page more confusing (by providing more choices to do the same thing), and may make it less likely that people do any verification. I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar enough with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. Carlo [1]: https://www.torproject.org/download/ From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: bo0od Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:25:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Carlo Zancanaro Cc: 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.161808987013611 (code B ref 47634); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:25:02 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 10 Apr 2021 21:24:30 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:53458 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL5h-0003XT-Rt for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:24:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.riseup.net ([198.252.153.129]:49858) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lVL5f-0003XF-IP for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 17:24:28 -0400 Received: from fews1.riseup.net (fews1-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.83]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.riseup.net", Issuer "Sectigo RSA Domain Validation Secure Server CA" (not verified)) by mx1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4FHp0j6NTzzDsl2; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 14:24:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1618089861; bh=b+XLrSbbEQ2vba7Ro8RRxCcRaf5tO6bb5ABY1zrN8K8=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=tKhtsVkL+NHG0JI04u86VOCXCWsgwUVd/CMIq03DZnlkkSfEXbqIXlceIbUF6MIF2 yI7uF881yF1aL9dKab4Fx39xwZNIdYHlfKPxhqhq73lk/A9iVf5zBmfxmqEVf3wBRa jPvT0p3CxMDqjh2vHnk9gQlm9N4F0rc6+Eq5o+WU= X-Riseup-User-ID: 47D4B846FB10B9B6CB9F39F000578869FA7EB855EA041381DD1006D4D9EAB7B0 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews1.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FHp0g5j7Hz5vkr; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 14:24:18 -0700 (PDT) References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> From: bo0od Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:24:13 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) > In this instance, the hash provides no > significant additional value over the signature. What you said is true, Only thing i would see it useful when there is an attack on PGP but not necessary can be produced as well on the same time on SHA512 like collision attack or so (nothing at the moment discovered but just theoretical attack) > If we look at the Tor project (who, I hope you will agree, care about > security), their download page[1] only provides links to PGP signatures > as their sole method of verification. If you tell me what most projects using at the moment i would tell you straight forward PGP, But on the future bases PGP on the bye bye way so what im suggesting here is to make it happen now rather than just waiting for the future to come with its more insecurities. (like what i referred to debian deprecation of PGP) > I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using > something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar enough > with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. Sure tyt, These stuff doesnt need to be fixed instantly but need to be looked in for sure. ThX! Carlo Zancanaro: > Hi bo0od! > > On Sat, Apr 10 2021, bo0od wrote: >>> Which implies that the signatures are sufficient, right? >> >> Well this is simple question but the answer is sorta deeper, So i will >> answer with yes and no: >> >> yes signatures are sufficient but signatures with PGP has problems... > > I grant that this might be true, but whether or not to use PGP is a > different issue to whether cryptographic signatures are sufficient to > verify downloads. If we compare the projects you've shown as examples: > > - Qubes provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key > > - Whonix provides hashes, PGP signatures, and a release signing key > > For verification purposes the hashes only provide transport integrity - > they don't provide any mechanism to verify where the content came from, > and because they're stored next to the images it's likely that any > attacker who could manipulate the images could also manipulate the > hashes. The signature provides a better guarantee that the image > contains what the project intends to distribute (i.e. that nobody has > compromised image itself). In this instance, the hash provides no > significant additional value over the signature. > > If we look at the Tor project (who, I hope you will agree, care about > security), their download page[1] only provides links to PGP signatures > as their sole method of verification. > > I'm not convinced there's much value to add anything beyond the > signatures, and I think there is some cost. Having multiple verification > options makes the download page more confusing (by providing more > choices to do the same thing), and may make it less likely that people > do any verification. > > I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using > something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar enough > with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. > > Carlo > > [1]: https://www.torproject.org/download/ From unknown Mon Jun 23 11:27:21 2025 X-Loop: help-debbugs@gnu.org Subject: bug#47634: Accompany .asc and .DIGESTS keys for the ISO Resent-From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Original-Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-CC: bug-guix@gnu.org Resent-Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 10:41:02 +0000 Resent-Message-ID: Resent-Sender: help-debbugs@gnu.org X-GNU-PR-Message: followup 47634 X-GNU-PR-Package: guix X-GNU-PR-Keywords: To: Carlo Zancanaro Cc: bo0od , 47634@debbugs.gnu.org Received: via spool by 47634-submit@debbugs.gnu.org id=B47634.16187424211048 (code B ref 47634); Sun, 18 Apr 2021 10:41:02 +0000 Received: (at 47634) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2021 10:40:21 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45546 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qi-0000Gq-Sw for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39742) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qh-0000GZ-BN for 47634@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:19 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49363) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qb-00011W-Ty; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:13 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=43574 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qa-0005l3-9M; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:12 -0400 From: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= References: <60cab189-2c49-0f7f-8c32-178220540514@riseup.net> <8624B91E-1A4F-4455-880A-E5664C27D5B1@zancanaro.id.au> <5c01ac9b-74db-42d5-db39-7f287b70255d@riseup.net> <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:40:10 +0200 In-Reply-To: <87y2dqlvqj.fsf@zancanaro.id.au> (Carlo Zancanaro's message of "Sat, 10 Apr 2021 12:27:32 +1000") Message-ID: <875z0jlvud.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) Hi all, Carlo Zancanaro skribis: > I'm not convinced there's much value to add anything beyond the > signatures, and I think there is some cost. Having multiple=20 > verification options makes the download page more confusing (by > providing more choices to do the same thing), and may make it less=20 > likely that people do any verification. Agreed. > I think there may be a larger conversation to have around using > something like Signify rather than PGP/GPG, but I'm not familiar=20 > enough with Signify to have an opinion about that at the moment. Right. OpenPGP isn=E2=80=99t great for software signing, but it=E2=80=99s = widespread, and that=E2=80=99s an important criterion if we are to allow users to authenticate what they download. Tools like Signify are certainly worth looking at, but I see it as a longer-term option. I=E2=80=99m closing this issue since it=E2=80=99s not really actionable. Thanks, Ludo=E2=80=99. From debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sun Apr 18 06:40:37 2021 Received: (at control) by debbugs.gnu.org; 18 Apr 2021 10:40:37 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:45549 helo=debbugs.gnu.org) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qz-0000HJ-3W for submit@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:37 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:39776) by debbugs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qx-0000H5-KP for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:35 -0400 Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:49366) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qs-0001FV-Ds for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:30 -0400 Received: from [2a01:e0a:1d:7270:af76:b9b:ca24:c465] (port=43576 helo=ribbon) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1lY4qr-0006NH-UG for control@debbugs.gnu.org; Sun, 18 Apr 2021 06:40:30 -0400 Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2021 12:40:28 +0200 Message-Id: <874kg3lvtv.fsf@gnu.org> To: control@debbugs.gnu.org From: =?utf-8?Q?Ludovic_Court=C3=A8s?= Subject: control message for bug #47634 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Debbugs-Envelope-To: control X-BeenThere: debbugs-submit@debbugs.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: debbugs-submit-bounces@debbugs.gnu.org Sender: "Debbugs-submit" X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) tags 47634 wontfix close 47634 quit