Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

1.1.8 has BAD gpg signature on pypi.org #4213

Closed
LocutusOfBorg opened this issue Dec 15, 2018 · 10 comments
Closed

1.1.8 has BAD gpg signature on pypi.org #4213

LocutusOfBorg opened this issue Dec 15, 2018 · 10 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@LocutusOfBorg
Copy link
Contributor

Hello,

gpg: WARNING: no command supplied.  Trying to guess what you mean ...
gpg: assuming signed data in 'borgbackup-1.1.8.tar.gz'
gpg: Signature made dom 09 dic 2018 03:37:30 CET
gpg:                using RSA key 2F81AFFBAB04E11FE8EE65D4243ACFA951F78E01
gpg:                issuer "tw@waldmann-edv.de"
gpg: BAD signature from "Thomas Waldmann <tw@waldmann-edv.de>" [unknown]

This prevents me from uploading in Debian :)

@LocutusOfBorg
Copy link
Contributor Author

Well, I'll upload because it matches what is in the upstream git, but please fix the signature :)

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

ThomasWaldmann commented Dec 15, 2018

@LocutusOfBorg congrats, you're the first to actually notice and report that!

I messed this up when doing the upload to pypi and having only a half-working gpg setup (seems like the qubes os gpg-client[-wrapper] is not fully compatible to gpg). So I tried to work around this by doing it in 2 steps, but the sig from step 1 did not match the binary from step 2...

I tried to fix this, but pypi does not let me upload the same version again.

I uploaded the same release archive as on pypi also to github releases and put a valid signature there.

As there seems to be nothing automatically checking these signatures when installing from pypi, I thought I'll just wait and see whether somebody will complain.

So, how did you find it, did you check manually or was it some tool checking the sig from pypi?

@ThomasWaldmann ThomasWaldmann changed the title 1.1.8 has BAD gpg signature 1.1.8 has BAD gpg signature on pypi.org Dec 15, 2018
@LocutusOfBorg
Copy link
Contributor Author

My upgrade workflow is:
go on debian borgbackup git repo.
merge my history with the upstream one (upstream tag)
call "uscan" to grab from pypi the orig tarball, and import it with the tag.
(this seems difficult, but it is a matter of git fetch, uscan and gbp import orig).
Update/upload/test whatever.

Recent "uscan" releases, automatically checks for signatures with this regex

version=4
opts=uversionmangle=s/(rc|a|b|c)/~$1/,pgpsigurlmangle=s/$/.asc/ \
https://pypi.debian.net/borgbackup/borgbackup-(.+)\.(?:zip|tgz|tbz|txz|(?:tar\.(?:gz|bz2|xz)))

so, noticing is not just luck, but a new way introduced some years ago in Debian to check for files consistency

we are not using this method [1] to check for authenticity :)
[1] https://xkcd.com/1181/

@LocutusOfBorg
Copy link
Contributor Author

feel free to close, I already have uploaded in Debian!

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

guess i'll keep the issue open just in case someone else is wondering - until 1.1.9 is released.

@lfam
Copy link
Contributor

lfam commented Dec 16, 2018

I used to check the signatures from PyPi but recently the PyPi site stopped showing the signature files in the web-based download interface. [0] How do you even know how to download them now?

I know that PyPi wanted to stop supporting PGP, and I didn't realize anyone was still uploading them.

[0] https://pypi.org/project/borgbackup/#files
pypi/warehouse#3356

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

It is same url as the archive file + .asc.

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

TODO: update release docs:

@ThomasWaldmann ThomasWaldmann self-assigned this Feb 1, 2019
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2019
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2019
ThomasWaldmann added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2019
update release workflow using twine (docs, scripts), see #4213
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2019
ThomasWaldmann added a commit to ThomasWaldmann/borg that referenced this issue Feb 1, 2019
ThomasWaldmann added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2019
update release workflow using twine (docs, scripts), see #4213
ThomasWaldmann added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2019
update release workflow using twine (docs, scripts), see #4213
@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

the release workflow now uses twine to avoid this kind of issue. so nothing to do here left.

just keeping it open until 1.1.9 release in case somebody is wondering about the bad signature.

@ThomasWaldmann
Copy link
Member

1.1.9 is coming soon, closing this.

@ghost ghost mentioned this issue Aug 26, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants