Welcome!
Important information
-- Information on torrent hosting changes
-- Information on MX15/16 GPG Keys
-- Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities

News
-- Introducing our new Website
-- MX Linux on social media: here

Current releases
-- MX-18.1 Point Release release info here
-- Migration Information to MX-18 here
-- antiX-17.4 release info here

New users
-- Please read this first, and don't forget to add system and hardware information to posts!
-- Here are the Forum Rules

EXPKEYSIG error and fix

User avatar
gjon
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:38 am

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#21

Post by gjon » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:46 am

Method 2:

1. Download antix-archive-keyring_20019.3.13_all.deb from here: http://repo.antixlinux.com

In the directory where you downloaded the deb, use gdebi to install
Why is this an an unencrypted repo?

User avatar
anticapitalista
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 6086
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:40 am

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#22

Post by anticapitalista » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:21 am

So you can download that deb
anticapitalista
Reg. linux user #395339.

Philosophers have interpreted the world in many ways; the point is to change it.

antiX-17 "Heather Heyer" - lean and mean.
https://antixlinux.com

User avatar
viewsonic
Forum Novice
Forum  Novice
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:26 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#23

Post by viewsonic » Fri Mar 15, 2019 6:56 pm

I just installed MX on main PC and got this error. oops's one liner fixed the problem. Thanks.
“We must be free not because we claim freedom, but because we practice it.”

—William Faulkner

User avatar
asqwerth
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 4308
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:37 am

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#24

Post by asqwerth » Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:29 am

I think an announcement and the new apt-get instructions should be posted on the announcement section of the forum because I understand the expiry of key is now also affecting the mx15/16 version of said Repo.
Desktop: Intel i5-4460, 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics
Clevo N130WU-based Ultrabook: Intel i7-8550U (Kaby Lake R), 16GB RAM, Intel integrated graphics (UEFI)
ASUS X42D laptop: AMD Phenom II, 6GB RAM, Mobility Radeon HD 5400

User avatar
richb
Administrator
Posts: 18334
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 2:17 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#25

Post by richb » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:22 am

asqwerth wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 12:29 am
I think an announcement and the new apt-get instructions should be posted on the announcement section of the forum because I understand the expiry of key is now also affecting the mx15/16 version of said Repo.
If someone would compose the solution and post a blog on the website or here in MX News and Announcements I will add it. The subsequent posts and PM's seemingly giving different solutions have confused me. (change the repo, wait for the package to show in updates)
Forum Rules
Guide - How to Ask for Help

Rich
SSD Production: MX 18.1
AMD A8 7600 FM2+ CPU R7 Graphics, 16 GIG Mem. Three Samsung EVO SSD's 250 GB, 350 GB HD

User avatar
MX-16_fan
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#26

Post by MX-16_fan » Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:38 pm

@all:

My general question would be whether there would be some safer way of handling situations like that (from a user perspective) – safer than downloading new keys via the open internet.

I remember that there were similar situations with MX-16 or MX-17, and similar advice was given then.

Unfortunately, I'm no expert at all when it comes to this key/signature stuff, but my naïve assumption would be that downloading authentication-related stuff via the open internet would be a no-go, as it breaks the signature/authentication chain of your protected Linux ecosystem.

To me, downloading keyrings via the open internet sounds like an invitation to MIT-attackers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack), who might in this way build bridgeheads that would allow them to compromise other your system.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. As said, I'm not an expert, and I've never really understood the details of apt's handling of keyrings and signatures.


Greetings, and a great week to all of you, Joe

User avatar
dolphin_oracle
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 10882
Joined: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:17 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#27

Post by dolphin_oracle » Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:11 pm

MX-16_fan wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:38 pm
@all:

My general question would be whether there would be some safer way of handling situations like that (from a user perspective) – safer than downloading new keys via the open internet.

I remember that there were similar situations with MX-16 or MX-17, and similar advice was given then.

Unfortunately, I'm no expert at all when it comes to this key/signature stuff, but my naïve assumption would be that downloading authentication-related stuff via the open internet would be a no-go, as it breaks the signature/authentication chain of your protected Linux ecosystem.

To me, downloading keyrings via the open internet sounds like an invitation to MIT-attackers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack), who might in this way build bridgeheads that would allow them to compromise other your system.

Please correct me if I'm wrong. As said, I'm not an expert, and I've never really understood the details of apt's handling of keyrings and signatures.


Greetings, and a great week to all of you, Joe
I may be off base but...

my understanding of this is that the issue isn't that the repos are encrypted (they aren't), but that they are signed. In order to verify the private signature of the signer of the repo packages, the end user needs the public key, which is what the archive package provides. So actually, its designed to work this way, a public key that is distributed and a private key that is secret. downloading the key from our own server via a link we provide, and having the key work against our own repos should be a strong indication that things are as they should be.

anyone that has ever added a key manually with "apt-key add -" faces a similar issue. I guess if you don't trust the public/private key relationship, you would have to assume that every mirror and every repository and release file was compromised. Since we the operators are saying that nothing was compromised, and the fact that the repo operators are pretty sharp people, I think we are safe in assuming that the keys are good.

the safer and less troublesome method is to update the key archive ahead of time. this one got missed this time. it happens, we are all human.
http://www.youtube.com/runwiththedolphin
lenovo ThinkPad T530 - MX-18
lenovo s21e - MX-18, antiX-17.3.1 (live-USB)
FYI: mx "test" repo is not the same thing as debian testing repo.

User avatar
fehlix
Forum Veteran
Forum Veteran
Posts: 3136
Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2018 5:09 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#28

Post by fehlix » Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:09 pm

MX-16_fan wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:38 pm
My general question would be whether there would be some safer way of handling situations like that (from a user perspective) – safer than downloading new keys via the open internet.
That's actually a good question.
And yes, it is save and secure, even downloading a public-key through the un-encrypted internet is not the issue.
Because, the here shown key-finger print is the key-element to verify the downloaded public-key of the signing key is legitimate.
The user can/should verify the key by it's fingerprint:
One method I have shown above:

Code: Select all

gpg --with-fingerprint  --no-default-keyring --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/antix-archive-keyring.gpg --list-keys
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/antix-archive-keyring.gpg
------------------------------------------------
pub   rsa2048 2013-03-13 [SC] [expires: 2021-05-01]
      ED57 48AC 0E57 5DD2 49A5  6B84 DB36 CDF3 452F 0C20
uid           [ unknown] antiX (antix repo) <repo@antixlinux.com>
sub   rsa2048 2013-03-13 [E] [expires: 2021-05-01] 
And the shown key-fingerprint "ED57 48AC 0E57 5DD2 49A5 6B84 DB36 CDF3 452F 0C20"
is unique and after manually verification save and secure to use and to trust.

First of all, such situation shall not happen, and the issue was fixed 1 day later by providing an additional package through the normal secure update mechanism.
So the question is good, but if carefully proceeded even such unusual situation can be solved fairly securely.
HTH
:puppy:
Gigabyte Z77M-D3H, Intel Xeon E3-1240 V2 (Quad core), 32GB RAM,
GeForce GTX 770, Samsung SSD 850 EVO 500GB, Seagate Barracuda 4TB

User avatar
MX-16_fan
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#29

Post by MX-16_fan » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:14 pm

@dolphin_oracle:
dolphin_oracle wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 7:11 pm
(...)
I may be off base but...

my understanding of this is that the issue isn't that the repos are encrypted (they aren't), but that they are signed. In order to verify the private signature of the signer of the repo packages, the end user needs the public key, which is what the archive package provides. So actually, its designed to work this way, a public key that is distributed and a private key that is secret. downloading the key from our own server via a link we provide, and having the key work against our own repos should be a strong indication that things are as they should be.

anyone that has ever added a key manually with "apt-key add -" faces a similar issue. I guess if you don't trust the public/private key relationship, you would have to assume that every mirror and every repository and release file was compromised. Since we the operators are saying that nothing was compromised, and the fact that the repo operators are pretty sharp people, I think we are safe in assuming that the keys are good.

the safer and less troublesome method is to update the key archive ahead of time. this one got missed this time. it happens, we are all human.

Thanks for this explanation. Greetings, and have a good week, Joe

User avatar
MX-16_fan
Forum Regular
Forum Regular
Posts: 998
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 12:09 pm

Re: EXPKEYSIG error and fix

#30

Post by MX-16_fan » Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:18 pm

@fehlix:
fehlix wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 8:09 pm
MX-16_fan wrote:
Sun Mar 17, 2019 3:38 pm
My general question would be whether there would be some safer way of handling situations like that (from a user perspective) – safer than downloading new keys via the open internet.
That's actually a good question.
And yes, it is save and secure, even downloading a public-key through the un-encrypted internet is not the issue.
Because, the here shown key-finger print is the key-element to verify the downloaded public-key of the signing key is legitimate.
The user can/should verify the key by it's fingerprint:
One method I have shown above:

Code: Select all

gpg --with-fingerprint  --no-default-keyring --keyring /etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/antix-archive-keyring.gpg --list-keys
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg.d/antix-archive-keyring.gpg
------------------------------------------------
pub   rsa2048 2013-03-13 [SC] [expires: 2021-05-01]
      ED57 48AC 0E57 5DD2 49A5  6B84 DB36 CDF3 452F 0C20
uid           [ unknown] antiX (antix repo) <repo@antixlinux.com>
sub   rsa2048 2013-03-13 [E] [expires: 2021-05-01] 
And the shown key-fingerprint "ED57 48AC 0E57 5DD2 49A5 6B84 DB36 CDF3 452F 0C20"
is unique and after manually verification save and secure to use and to trust.

First of all, such situation shall not happen, and the issue was fixed 1 day later by providing an additional package through the normal secure update mechanism.
So the question is good, but if carefully proceeded even such unusual situation can be solved fairly securely.
HTH
:puppy:

Thanks for the explanation. Appears to me that this might be a valuable piece of information for the FAQ / Wiki / User Manual as well. Greetings, and have a nice week, Joe

Post Reply

Return to “antiX”