home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   linux.debian.bugs.dist      Ohh some weird Debian bug report thing      28,835 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 27,977 of 28,835   
   Julian Andres Klode to kpcyrd   
   Bug#1127595: [Pkg-rust-maintainers] Bug#   
   17 Feb 26 12:00:01   
   
   From: jak@debian.org   
      
   On Tue, Feb 10, 2026 at 02:59:17PM +0100, kpcyrd wrote:   
   > On 2/10/26 12:21 PM, David Kalnischkies wrote:   
   > > > This is Sequoia's expected behavior provided the signature was created   
   before   
   > > > the key expiration. I don't think it's the most sensible notion but it's   
   > > > outside of our control, as long as we don't want to patch that in Debian   
   > > > to behave differently.   
   > >   
   > > As can be seen by the debug output of our gpgv method gpgv actually has   
   > > similar behaviour (exit code 0) – it is the special handling in our gpgv   
   > > method that detects that gpgv produced a VALIDSIG, but not a GOODSIG (and   
   > > instead a EXPKEYSIG).   
   > >   
   > >   
   > > IF that is a desired property to be similar in this regard to gpgv is   
   > > something to be decided by upstream, but a feature request to enable   
   > > a mode that considers them bad enough to fail might be in order.   
   > >   
   > > The idea here is that a repo with an expired key (think e.g. buster)   
   > > should not be used even if that repo was correctly signed back in the   
   > > day as the data the key signed is sort of expired by now, too.   
   > >   
   > > (similar to our Valid-Until field… but that is not universally used)   
   >   
   >   
   > Does this really matter in praxis though?   
   >   
   > The expiration date on PGP keys is often confused with the expiration on   
   > x509 certificates, which is a proper security control enforced through a 3rd   
   > party.   
   >   
   > With OpenPGP keys the expiration date is quite literally a self-signed   
   > certificate, if the secret key is compromised you can arbitrarily issue new   
   > Type 9 Key Expiration Time Subpackets, including "0 (Unlimited)".   
      
   Yes but you cannot update the keys on existing APT clients; APT's key   
   store does not have facilities to update it over the network.   
      
   --   
   debian developer - deb.li/jak | jak-linux.org - free software dev   
   ubuntu core developer                              i speak de, en   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca