Tell from PGP signature which algorithms served in its creation












0














I am dealing with a Debian repository that apparently contains an InRelease file that may have been signed in a way that is no longer appropriate. The symptom is that clients receive the warning The repository '... InRelease is not signed when they run apt-get update.



InRelease contains sections starting with -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- and -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----, so it is signed, and I've already adjusted my PGP personal-digest-preferences and personal-cipher-preferences settings to exclude SHA-1 from use. But something is still lacking.



My question is this: When I inspect the actual signature (the ASCII armor between ----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- and -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----) is there a way to tell which algorithms served in its creation, and specifically whether SHA-1 served in its creation? I guess the answer is no, but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion.



UPDATE The first line after -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- reads Hash: SHA256 so that looks good (since I've chosen SHA256 first in the preferences settings), but the problem still persists.



UPDATE I've now excluded SHA-1 also from indices by calling apt-ftparchive packages and apt-ftparchive release (for creating files Packages and Releases respectively) with additional parameters --no-sha1, but the problem still persists.










share|improve this question





























    0














    I am dealing with a Debian repository that apparently contains an InRelease file that may have been signed in a way that is no longer appropriate. The symptom is that clients receive the warning The repository '... InRelease is not signed when they run apt-get update.



    InRelease contains sections starting with -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- and -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----, so it is signed, and I've already adjusted my PGP personal-digest-preferences and personal-cipher-preferences settings to exclude SHA-1 from use. But something is still lacking.



    My question is this: When I inspect the actual signature (the ASCII armor between ----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- and -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----) is there a way to tell which algorithms served in its creation, and specifically whether SHA-1 served in its creation? I guess the answer is no, but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion.



    UPDATE The first line after -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- reads Hash: SHA256 so that looks good (since I've chosen SHA256 first in the preferences settings), but the problem still persists.



    UPDATE I've now excluded SHA-1 also from indices by calling apt-ftparchive packages and apt-ftparchive release (for creating files Packages and Releases respectively) with additional parameters --no-sha1, but the problem still persists.










    share|improve this question



























      0












      0








      0







      I am dealing with a Debian repository that apparently contains an InRelease file that may have been signed in a way that is no longer appropriate. The symptom is that clients receive the warning The repository '... InRelease is not signed when they run apt-get update.



      InRelease contains sections starting with -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- and -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----, so it is signed, and I've already adjusted my PGP personal-digest-preferences and personal-cipher-preferences settings to exclude SHA-1 from use. But something is still lacking.



      My question is this: When I inspect the actual signature (the ASCII armor between ----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- and -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----) is there a way to tell which algorithms served in its creation, and specifically whether SHA-1 served in its creation? I guess the answer is no, but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion.



      UPDATE The first line after -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- reads Hash: SHA256 so that looks good (since I've chosen SHA256 first in the preferences settings), but the problem still persists.



      UPDATE I've now excluded SHA-1 also from indices by calling apt-ftparchive packages and apt-ftparchive release (for creating files Packages and Releases respectively) with additional parameters --no-sha1, but the problem still persists.










      share|improve this question















      I am dealing with a Debian repository that apparently contains an InRelease file that may have been signed in a way that is no longer appropriate. The symptom is that clients receive the warning The repository '... InRelease is not signed when they run apt-get update.



      InRelease contains sections starting with -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- and -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----, so it is signed, and I've already adjusted my PGP personal-digest-preferences and personal-cipher-preferences settings to exclude SHA-1 from use. But something is still lacking.



      My question is this: When I inspect the actual signature (the ASCII armor between ----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- and -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----) is there a way to tell which algorithms served in its creation, and specifically whether SHA-1 served in its creation? I guess the answer is no, but I'd like to hear an expert's opinion.



      UPDATE The first line after -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- reads Hash: SHA256 so that looks good (since I've chosen SHA256 first in the preferences settings), but the problem still persists.



      UPDATE I've now excluded SHA-1 also from indices by calling apt-ftparchive packages and apt-ftparchive release (for creating files Packages and Releases respectively) with additional parameters --no-sha1, but the problem still persists.







      security sha apt pgp






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Nov 19 '18 at 13:36

























      asked Nov 19 '18 at 12:54









      rookie099

      36510




      36510
























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          So now it looks as if the signature was already valid (after removing SHA-1 digests as described), but the signing key was not yet known.



          So adding the signing key to clients with add-key add key.pub made the problem disappear.






          share|improve this answer





















            Your Answer






            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
            StackExchange.snippets.init();
            });
            });
            }, "code-snippets");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "1"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53375105%2ftell-from-pgp-signature-which-algorithms-served-in-its-creation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            0














            So now it looks as if the signature was already valid (after removing SHA-1 digests as described), but the signing key was not yet known.



            So adding the signing key to clients with add-key add key.pub made the problem disappear.






            share|improve this answer


























              0














              So now it looks as if the signature was already valid (after removing SHA-1 digests as described), but the signing key was not yet known.



              So adding the signing key to clients with add-key add key.pub made the problem disappear.






              share|improve this answer
























                0












                0








                0






                So now it looks as if the signature was already valid (after removing SHA-1 digests as described), but the signing key was not yet known.



                So adding the signing key to clients with add-key add key.pub made the problem disappear.






                share|improve this answer












                So now it looks as if the signature was already valid (after removing SHA-1 digests as described), but the signing key was not yet known.



                So adding the signing key to clients with add-key add key.pub made the problem disappear.







                share|improve this answer












                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer










                answered Nov 19 '18 at 14:44









                rookie099

                36510




                36510






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53375105%2ftell-from-pgp-signature-which-algorithms-served-in-its-creation%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    MongoDB - Not Authorized To Execute Command

                    How to fix TextFormField cause rebuild widget in Flutter

                    in spring boot 2.1 many test slices are not allowed anymore due to multiple @BootstrapWith