Fedora 25 upgrade: doesn't install key for package updates, what's going on?
Fedora 24 pops up this lovely GUI-triggered update to Fedora 25 (using gnome-software). The instructions for upgrading Fedora workstation simply list the steps to click through in the GUI. Good job!
When I went to install some software, I was surprised to find this prompt/warning:
$ sudo dnf upgrade
...
warning: /var/cache/dnf/updates-1d34501737ae01ab/packages/NetworkManager-openconnect-1.2.4-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID fdb19c98: NOKEY
Importing GPG key 0xFDB19C98:
Userid : "Fedora 25 Primary (25) <fedora-25-primary@fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: C437 DCCD 558A 66A3 7D6F 4372 4089 D8F2 FDB1 9C98
From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]:
Does this mean automatic updates (notifications) are silently failing unless I manually install something and accept the key??
fedora upgrade dnf software-updates
add a comment |
Fedora 24 pops up this lovely GUI-triggered update to Fedora 25 (using gnome-software). The instructions for upgrading Fedora workstation simply list the steps to click through in the GUI. Good job!
When I went to install some software, I was surprised to find this prompt/warning:
$ sudo dnf upgrade
...
warning: /var/cache/dnf/updates-1d34501737ae01ab/packages/NetworkManager-openconnect-1.2.4-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID fdb19c98: NOKEY
Importing GPG key 0xFDB19C98:
Userid : "Fedora 25 Primary (25) <fedora-25-primary@fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: C437 DCCD 558A 66A3 7D6F 4372 4089 D8F2 FDB1 9C98
From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]:
Does this mean automatic updates (notifications) are silently failing unless I manually install something and accept the key??
fedora upgrade dnf software-updates
add a comment |
Fedora 24 pops up this lovely GUI-triggered update to Fedora 25 (using gnome-software). The instructions for upgrading Fedora workstation simply list the steps to click through in the GUI. Good job!
When I went to install some software, I was surprised to find this prompt/warning:
$ sudo dnf upgrade
...
warning: /var/cache/dnf/updates-1d34501737ae01ab/packages/NetworkManager-openconnect-1.2.4-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID fdb19c98: NOKEY
Importing GPG key 0xFDB19C98:
Userid : "Fedora 25 Primary (25) <fedora-25-primary@fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: C437 DCCD 558A 66A3 7D6F 4372 4089 D8F2 FDB1 9C98
From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]:
Does this mean automatic updates (notifications) are silently failing unless I manually install something and accept the key??
fedora upgrade dnf software-updates
Fedora 24 pops up this lovely GUI-triggered update to Fedora 25 (using gnome-software). The instructions for upgrading Fedora workstation simply list the steps to click through in the GUI. Good job!
When I went to install some software, I was surprised to find this prompt/warning:
$ sudo dnf upgrade
...
warning: /var/cache/dnf/updates-1d34501737ae01ab/packages/NetworkManager-openconnect-1.2.4-3.fc25.x86_64.rpm: Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID fdb19c98: NOKEY
Importing GPG key 0xFDB19C98:
Userid : "Fedora 25 Primary (25) <fedora-25-primary@fedoraproject.org>"
Fingerprint: C437 DCCD 558A 66A3 7D6F 4372 4089 D8F2 FDB1 9C98
From : /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-25-x86_64
Is this ok [y/N]:
Does this mean automatic updates (notifications) are silently failing unless I manually install something and accept the key??
fedora upgrade dnf software-updates
fedora upgrade dnf software-updates
asked Dec 20 '16 at 14:40
sourcejedisourcejedi
23.2k437102
23.2k437102
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Actually this is fine. I might even argue it is the best way to do it :-).
The automatic update notifications in Fedora Workstation use PackageKit. They do not use the dnf
command.
You can see that pkcon
installs packages successfully, (or updates with pkcon -c 1 refresh && pkcon update
(explanation of -c here)). It does not prompt about the key. Nor does it install the key in the store used by dnf
; if you run dnf
again it will still prompt to accept the key.
This surprised me, because the keystore used by dnf is actually rpm
. PackageKit acts as a frontend to rpm, but apparently it does not populate the rpm keyring or rely on it for verification.
You can see that PackageKit instead saves keys in e.g. /var/cache/PackageKit/25/metadata/fedora/gpgdir/
. Arguably this makes more sense than the traditional organization. This way, it is possible to tell which keys have been downloaded for which repo.
Unlike dnf, PackageKit does not prompt to accept keys from the configured URL. (Note that if it did prompt to save this file in /var/cache
, strictly speaking this file would not be a pure cache, as it would also represent user configuration :-).
The lack of prompting does not decrease the security of Fedora, because e.g. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
says to load the key from a file, which has already been installed (by the fedora-release
package). The prompting by dnf
would also be skipped if you used scripts with dnf -y install
- this being the standard way to avoid prompting when the installed package has additional requirements. (The Ansible dnf
module does the same thing).
I conclude this prompt by dnf
is not considered to serve an important purpose. Considering the scenario in the question, it would probably be better to remove the prompt that says "warning", and asks "Is this ok". (And it would be best to fix libdnf
to use the same pattern as PackageKit. From a security position it seems quite strange to keep old RPM keys around indefinitely.
EDIT: in newer versions, both PK and dnf
are now implemented using libdnf
. So there are even fewer excuses to not fix this :-).
Other repos like google-chrome.repo might rely on downloading updated keys over HTTPS. This has different security properties. In particular, it seems less likely that key pinning and HSTS (as used by the main HTTPS clients) have been implemented for PackageKit. I am unclear why this possibility was implemented in the first place, i.e. downloading updated keys using a method with different security properties. At minimum, it seems an argument for not keeping downloaded keys in /var/cache/
, which the user may wish to clear when they have an urgent need of disk space.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "106"
};
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f331668%2ffedora-25-upgrade-doesnt-install-key-for-package-updates-whats-going-on%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
Actually this is fine. I might even argue it is the best way to do it :-).
The automatic update notifications in Fedora Workstation use PackageKit. They do not use the dnf
command.
You can see that pkcon
installs packages successfully, (or updates with pkcon -c 1 refresh && pkcon update
(explanation of -c here)). It does not prompt about the key. Nor does it install the key in the store used by dnf
; if you run dnf
again it will still prompt to accept the key.
This surprised me, because the keystore used by dnf is actually rpm
. PackageKit acts as a frontend to rpm, but apparently it does not populate the rpm keyring or rely on it for verification.
You can see that PackageKit instead saves keys in e.g. /var/cache/PackageKit/25/metadata/fedora/gpgdir/
. Arguably this makes more sense than the traditional organization. This way, it is possible to tell which keys have been downloaded for which repo.
Unlike dnf, PackageKit does not prompt to accept keys from the configured URL. (Note that if it did prompt to save this file in /var/cache
, strictly speaking this file would not be a pure cache, as it would also represent user configuration :-).
The lack of prompting does not decrease the security of Fedora, because e.g. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
says to load the key from a file, which has already been installed (by the fedora-release
package). The prompting by dnf
would also be skipped if you used scripts with dnf -y install
- this being the standard way to avoid prompting when the installed package has additional requirements. (The Ansible dnf
module does the same thing).
I conclude this prompt by dnf
is not considered to serve an important purpose. Considering the scenario in the question, it would probably be better to remove the prompt that says "warning", and asks "Is this ok". (And it would be best to fix libdnf
to use the same pattern as PackageKit. From a security position it seems quite strange to keep old RPM keys around indefinitely.
EDIT: in newer versions, both PK and dnf
are now implemented using libdnf
. So there are even fewer excuses to not fix this :-).
Other repos like google-chrome.repo might rely on downloading updated keys over HTTPS. This has different security properties. In particular, it seems less likely that key pinning and HSTS (as used by the main HTTPS clients) have been implemented for PackageKit. I am unclear why this possibility was implemented in the first place, i.e. downloading updated keys using a method with different security properties. At minimum, it seems an argument for not keeping downloaded keys in /var/cache/
, which the user may wish to clear when they have an urgent need of disk space.
add a comment |
Actually this is fine. I might even argue it is the best way to do it :-).
The automatic update notifications in Fedora Workstation use PackageKit. They do not use the dnf
command.
You can see that pkcon
installs packages successfully, (or updates with pkcon -c 1 refresh && pkcon update
(explanation of -c here)). It does not prompt about the key. Nor does it install the key in the store used by dnf
; if you run dnf
again it will still prompt to accept the key.
This surprised me, because the keystore used by dnf is actually rpm
. PackageKit acts as a frontend to rpm, but apparently it does not populate the rpm keyring or rely on it for verification.
You can see that PackageKit instead saves keys in e.g. /var/cache/PackageKit/25/metadata/fedora/gpgdir/
. Arguably this makes more sense than the traditional organization. This way, it is possible to tell which keys have been downloaded for which repo.
Unlike dnf, PackageKit does not prompt to accept keys from the configured URL. (Note that if it did prompt to save this file in /var/cache
, strictly speaking this file would not be a pure cache, as it would also represent user configuration :-).
The lack of prompting does not decrease the security of Fedora, because e.g. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
says to load the key from a file, which has already been installed (by the fedora-release
package). The prompting by dnf
would also be skipped if you used scripts with dnf -y install
- this being the standard way to avoid prompting when the installed package has additional requirements. (The Ansible dnf
module does the same thing).
I conclude this prompt by dnf
is not considered to serve an important purpose. Considering the scenario in the question, it would probably be better to remove the prompt that says "warning", and asks "Is this ok". (And it would be best to fix libdnf
to use the same pattern as PackageKit. From a security position it seems quite strange to keep old RPM keys around indefinitely.
EDIT: in newer versions, both PK and dnf
are now implemented using libdnf
. So there are even fewer excuses to not fix this :-).
Other repos like google-chrome.repo might rely on downloading updated keys over HTTPS. This has different security properties. In particular, it seems less likely that key pinning and HSTS (as used by the main HTTPS clients) have been implemented for PackageKit. I am unclear why this possibility was implemented in the first place, i.e. downloading updated keys using a method with different security properties. At minimum, it seems an argument for not keeping downloaded keys in /var/cache/
, which the user may wish to clear when they have an urgent need of disk space.
add a comment |
Actually this is fine. I might even argue it is the best way to do it :-).
The automatic update notifications in Fedora Workstation use PackageKit. They do not use the dnf
command.
You can see that pkcon
installs packages successfully, (or updates with pkcon -c 1 refresh && pkcon update
(explanation of -c here)). It does not prompt about the key. Nor does it install the key in the store used by dnf
; if you run dnf
again it will still prompt to accept the key.
This surprised me, because the keystore used by dnf is actually rpm
. PackageKit acts as a frontend to rpm, but apparently it does not populate the rpm keyring or rely on it for verification.
You can see that PackageKit instead saves keys in e.g. /var/cache/PackageKit/25/metadata/fedora/gpgdir/
. Arguably this makes more sense than the traditional organization. This way, it is possible to tell which keys have been downloaded for which repo.
Unlike dnf, PackageKit does not prompt to accept keys from the configured URL. (Note that if it did prompt to save this file in /var/cache
, strictly speaking this file would not be a pure cache, as it would also represent user configuration :-).
The lack of prompting does not decrease the security of Fedora, because e.g. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
says to load the key from a file, which has already been installed (by the fedora-release
package). The prompting by dnf
would also be skipped if you used scripts with dnf -y install
- this being the standard way to avoid prompting when the installed package has additional requirements. (The Ansible dnf
module does the same thing).
I conclude this prompt by dnf
is not considered to serve an important purpose. Considering the scenario in the question, it would probably be better to remove the prompt that says "warning", and asks "Is this ok". (And it would be best to fix libdnf
to use the same pattern as PackageKit. From a security position it seems quite strange to keep old RPM keys around indefinitely.
EDIT: in newer versions, both PK and dnf
are now implemented using libdnf
. So there are even fewer excuses to not fix this :-).
Other repos like google-chrome.repo might rely on downloading updated keys over HTTPS. This has different security properties. In particular, it seems less likely that key pinning and HSTS (as used by the main HTTPS clients) have been implemented for PackageKit. I am unclear why this possibility was implemented in the first place, i.e. downloading updated keys using a method with different security properties. At minimum, it seems an argument for not keeping downloaded keys in /var/cache/
, which the user may wish to clear when they have an urgent need of disk space.
Actually this is fine. I might even argue it is the best way to do it :-).
The automatic update notifications in Fedora Workstation use PackageKit. They do not use the dnf
command.
You can see that pkcon
installs packages successfully, (or updates with pkcon -c 1 refresh && pkcon update
(explanation of -c here)). It does not prompt about the key. Nor does it install the key in the store used by dnf
; if you run dnf
again it will still prompt to accept the key.
This surprised me, because the keystore used by dnf is actually rpm
. PackageKit acts as a frontend to rpm, but apparently it does not populate the rpm keyring or rely on it for verification.
You can see that PackageKit instead saves keys in e.g. /var/cache/PackageKit/25/metadata/fedora/gpgdir/
. Arguably this makes more sense than the traditional organization. This way, it is possible to tell which keys have been downloaded for which repo.
Unlike dnf, PackageKit does not prompt to accept keys from the configured URL. (Note that if it did prompt to save this file in /var/cache
, strictly speaking this file would not be a pure cache, as it would also represent user configuration :-).
The lack of prompting does not decrease the security of Fedora, because e.g. /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora.repo
says to load the key from a file, which has already been installed (by the fedora-release
package). The prompting by dnf
would also be skipped if you used scripts with dnf -y install
- this being the standard way to avoid prompting when the installed package has additional requirements. (The Ansible dnf
module does the same thing).
I conclude this prompt by dnf
is not considered to serve an important purpose. Considering the scenario in the question, it would probably be better to remove the prompt that says "warning", and asks "Is this ok". (And it would be best to fix libdnf
to use the same pattern as PackageKit. From a security position it seems quite strange to keep old RPM keys around indefinitely.
EDIT: in newer versions, both PK and dnf
are now implemented using libdnf
. So there are even fewer excuses to not fix this :-).
Other repos like google-chrome.repo might rely on downloading updated keys over HTTPS. This has different security properties. In particular, it seems less likely that key pinning and HSTS (as used by the main HTTPS clients) have been implemented for PackageKit. I am unclear why this possibility was implemented in the first place, i.e. downloading updated keys using a method with different security properties. At minimum, it seems an argument for not keeping downloaded keys in /var/cache/
, which the user may wish to clear when they have an urgent need of disk space.
edited Jan 8 at 16:38
answered Dec 20 '16 at 14:40
sourcejedisourcejedi
23.2k437102
23.2k437102
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Unix & Linux Stack Exchange!
- 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2funix.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f331668%2ffedora-25-upgrade-doesnt-install-key-for-package-updates-whats-going-on%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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