[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

apt-get and signatures couldn't be verified etc



i'm on a buster64 vagrant instance, and building an armel distro, using a build.sh, multistrap etc

Anyway its undone with all the

"W: Download is performed unsandboxed as root as file '/mnt/debian_build/rootfs/var/lib/apt/lists/partial/deb.debian.org_debian_dists_stable_InRelease' couldn't be accessed by user '_apt'. - pkgAcquire::Run (13: Permission denied)
W: GPG error: http://deb.debian.org/debian stable InRelease: The following signatures couldn't be verified because the public key is not available: NO_PUBKEY 04EE7237B7D453EC NO_PUBKEY 648ACFD622F3D138 NO_PUBKEY DCC9EFBF77E11517
E: The repository 'http://deb.debian.org/debian stable InRelease' is not signed.
"

yes i've found the threadds about adding the keys , gpg and all that

- didn't work

sure...

--allow-unauthenticated
           Ignore if packages can't be authenticated and don't prompt about it. This can be useful while working with local
           repositories, but is a huge security risk if data authenticity isn't ensured in another way by the user itself. The
           usage of the Trusted option for sources.list(5) entries should usually be preferred over this global override.
           Configuration Item: APT::Get::AllowUnauthenticated.

trouble is it only half works........

or am I misunderstanding the man page ? ......which wouldn't surprise me, lost count of number of times peering through man pages

completely obtuse and wrong.

$ apt --version
apt 1.8.2.3 (amd64)

looking at the source code, looks like some cases of should be skipping the verify fail for "allow-unauthenticated"

and not understanding why....

Changed the code and got much further.


addendum: got to the repo for https://salsa.debian.org/apt-team/apt

its version is 2.3.8, so not sure why update on buster64 didn't have this version

some preliminary diff analysis still seems to be that "allow-unauthenticated" is NOT going to fully work the way I understand it should......?




Reply to: