Gentoo Archives: gentoo-security

From: Kurt Lieber <klieber@g.o>
To: gentoo-security@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-security] Re: No, apparently not. (was: Is anybody else worried about this?)
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:19:44
Message-Id: 20041108101921.GV10927@mail.lieber.org
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-security] Re: No, apparently not. (was: Is anybody else worried about this?) by Tobias Klausmann
1 On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 10:19:27AM +0100 or thereabouts, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
2 > > cat /usr/portage/sys-apps/portage/Manifest
3 >
4 > This does not contain a GPG signature here. Of all packages...
5
6 It did when I typed that message last night. Someone must have committed a
7 new version of portage without signing things. I agree, portage should be
8 signed. It's still a new process for us, so it will take time to get to
9 100%.
10
11 > I've run a script across the entire tree, collecting 43 different
12 > signature keys IDs from Manifest files in all (from a total of
13 > 2074 signed Manifest files, making up about 1/4). Of those keys,
14 > 16 were unavailable on the Subkeys Public Key Network (listed
15 > below). Where can I get those?
16
17 Good question -- I don't know. They should be available on pgp.mit.edu,
18 but if they're not, then I'd suggest start filing bugs against those
19 individual packages. (NOT portage bugs)
20
21 --kurt

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-security] Re: No, apparently not. (was: Is anybody else worried about this?) Tobias Klausmann <klausman@××××××××××××.de>