Getting “Release: The following signatures were invalid†on local repo
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP up vote
1
down vote
favorite
We just installed an Ubuntu 18.04 Server VM to see if our Chef configuration would work on this new distro.
On a separate VM, we have a local apt mirror for this release:
# tree
.
├── extra
│  ├── binary-amd64
│  │  ├── Packages
│  │  └── Packages.gz
│  └── binary-i386
│  ├── Packages
│  └── Packages.gz
├── Release
└── Release.gpg
3 directories, 6 files
We signed the Release file using this command:
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
The signature seems to be ok after this:
# LANG=C gpg --verify /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release.gpg /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release
gpg: Signature made mar 29 may 2018 13:03:12 WEST using RSA key ID 271AFAF4
gpg: Good signature from "... <...@...>"
On the client side, we've imported the 271AFAF4 key:
# LANG=C apt-key list
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
--------------------
pub rsa2048 2014-10-27 [SC]
0F11 1A77 EE05 C406 2691 FC74 1794 5F7F 271A FAF4
uid [ unknown] ... <...@...>
The repo definition file on the client side is:
deb "http://localrepo/ubuntu-local" bionic extra
However, each time I run apt-get update I get:
W: GPG error: http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release: The following signatures were invalid: 0F111A77EE05C4062691FC7417945F7F271AFAF4
E: The repository 'http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
However, as you can see above the signature is correct. As a side note, the very same configuration worked on xenial (replacing bionic by xenial in the repo config file), and I also tried to add the xenial repo on the bionic VM with the same result.
I have seen other answers but this seems not to be a duplicate of them.
What am I missing?
apt server 18.04
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
We just installed an Ubuntu 18.04 Server VM to see if our Chef configuration would work on this new distro.
On a separate VM, we have a local apt mirror for this release:
# tree
.
├── extra
│  ├── binary-amd64
│  │  ├── Packages
│  │  └── Packages.gz
│  └── binary-i386
│  ├── Packages
│  └── Packages.gz
├── Release
└── Release.gpg
3 directories, 6 files
We signed the Release file using this command:
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
The signature seems to be ok after this:
# LANG=C gpg --verify /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release.gpg /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release
gpg: Signature made mar 29 may 2018 13:03:12 WEST using RSA key ID 271AFAF4
gpg: Good signature from "... <...@...>"
On the client side, we've imported the 271AFAF4 key:
# LANG=C apt-key list
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
--------------------
pub rsa2048 2014-10-27 [SC]
0F11 1A77 EE05 C406 2691 FC74 1794 5F7F 271A FAF4
uid [ unknown] ... <...@...>
The repo definition file on the client side is:
deb "http://localrepo/ubuntu-local" bionic extra
However, each time I run apt-get update I get:
W: GPG error: http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release: The following signatures were invalid: 0F111A77EE05C4062691FC7417945F7F271AFAF4
E: The repository 'http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
However, as you can see above the signature is correct. As a side note, the very same configuration worked on xenial (replacing bionic by xenial in the repo config file), and I also tried to add the xenial repo on the bionic VM with the same result.
I have seen other answers but this seems not to be a duplicate of them.
What am I missing?
apt server 18.04
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
We just installed an Ubuntu 18.04 Server VM to see if our Chef configuration would work on this new distro.
On a separate VM, we have a local apt mirror for this release:
# tree
.
├── extra
│  ├── binary-amd64
│  │  ├── Packages
│  │  └── Packages.gz
│  └── binary-i386
│  ├── Packages
│  └── Packages.gz
├── Release
└── Release.gpg
3 directories, 6 files
We signed the Release file using this command:
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
The signature seems to be ok after this:
# LANG=C gpg --verify /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release.gpg /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release
gpg: Signature made mar 29 may 2018 13:03:12 WEST using RSA key ID 271AFAF4
gpg: Good signature from "... <...@...>"
On the client side, we've imported the 271AFAF4 key:
# LANG=C apt-key list
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
--------------------
pub rsa2048 2014-10-27 [SC]
0F11 1A77 EE05 C406 2691 FC74 1794 5F7F 271A FAF4
uid [ unknown] ... <...@...>
The repo definition file on the client side is:
deb "http://localrepo/ubuntu-local" bionic extra
However, each time I run apt-get update I get:
W: GPG error: http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release: The following signatures were invalid: 0F111A77EE05C4062691FC7417945F7F271AFAF4
E: The repository 'http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
However, as you can see above the signature is correct. As a side note, the very same configuration worked on xenial (replacing bionic by xenial in the repo config file), and I also tried to add the xenial repo on the bionic VM with the same result.
I have seen other answers but this seems not to be a duplicate of them.
What am I missing?
apt server 18.04
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
We just installed an Ubuntu 18.04 Server VM to see if our Chef configuration would work on this new distro.
On a separate VM, we have a local apt mirror for this release:
# tree
.
├── extra
│  ├── binary-amd64
│  │  ├── Packages
│  │  └── Packages.gz
│  └── binary-i386
│  ├── Packages
│  └── Packages.gz
├── Release
└── Release.gpg
3 directories, 6 files
We signed the Release file using this command:
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
The signature seems to be ok after this:
# LANG=C gpg --verify /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release.gpg /var/www/html/ubuntu-local/dists/bionic/Release
gpg: Signature made mar 29 may 2018 13:03:12 WEST using RSA key ID 271AFAF4
gpg: Good signature from "... <...@...>"
On the client side, we've imported the 271AFAF4 key:
# LANG=C apt-key list
/etc/apt/trusted.gpg
--------------------
pub rsa2048 2014-10-27 [SC]
0F11 1A77 EE05 C406 2691 FC74 1794 5F7F 271A FAF4
uid [ unknown] ... <...@...>
The repo definition file on the client side is:
deb "http://localrepo/ubuntu-local" bionic extra
However, each time I run apt-get update I get:
W: GPG error: http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release: The following signatures were invalid: 0F111A77EE05C4062691FC7417945F7F271AFAF4
E: The repository 'http://localrepo/ubuntu-local bionic Release' is not signed.
N: Updating from such a repository can't be done securely, and is therefore disabled by default.
N: See apt-secure(8) manpage for repository creation and user configuration details.
However, as you can see above the signature is correct. As a side note, the very same configuration worked on xenial (replacing bionic by xenial in the repo config file), and I also tried to add the xenial repo on the bionic VM with the same result.
I have seen other answers but this seems not to be a duplicate of them.
What am I missing?
apt server 18.04
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
edited May 29 at 13:50
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1062
1062
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43
add a comment |Â
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
In previous releases the system was unhappy with the encryption algorithm of some repoes:
uses weak digest algorithm (SHA1)
Maybe this issue is something about that but in another way.
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
In previous releases the system was unhappy with the encryption algorithm of some repoes:
uses weak digest algorithm (SHA1)
Maybe this issue is something about that but in another way.
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
In previous releases the system was unhappy with the encryption algorithm of some repoes:
uses weak digest algorithm (SHA1)
Maybe this issue is something about that but in another way.
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
In previous releases the system was unhappy with the encryption algorithm of some repoes:
uses weak digest algorithm (SHA1)
Maybe this issue is something about that but in another way.
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
In previous releases the system was unhappy with the encryption algorithm of some repoes:
uses weak digest algorithm (SHA1)
Maybe this issue is something about that but in another way.
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
answered Jun 7 at 20:03
jazzmale
215
215
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1041584%2fgetting-release-the-following-signatures-were-invalid-on-local-repo%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e)
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom))
StackExchange.using('gps', function() StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', location: 'question_page' ); );
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
;
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
);
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
You might find this useful.
– Elder Geek
May 29 at 22:21
@ElderGeek these are basically the steps that I've followed, it's still failing though.
– nKn
May 31 at 7:58
basically? or exactly? Your output indicates that the signature is invalid. Everything else happens due to that. I would begin by generating a new one .
– Elder Geek
Jun 2 at 21:43