Getting “Release: The following signatures were invalid” on local repo
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
1163
add a comment |
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
1163
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 |
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
1163
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
apt server 18.04
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1163
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1163
edited May 29 at 13:50
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1163
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1163
asked May 29 at 13:25
nKn
1163
1163
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 |
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 |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Try using this -
/usr/bin/gpg -bs -o Release.gpg Release
Instead of this -
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
Notice the "-a" difference.
From gpg manpage -
-a --armor
Create ASCII armored output. The default is to create the binary OpenPGP format.
According to this -
...The reason why we avoid ASCII-armored files is that they cannot be used directly by SecureApt..
NOTE:
If the above method doesn't work, as an additional step along with the above mentioned method, try adding these two lines to the ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf file -
cert-digest-algo SHA256
digest-algo SHA256
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "89"
};
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: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
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%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1041584%2fgetting-release-the-following-signatures-were-invalid-on-local-repo%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
Try using this -
/usr/bin/gpg -bs -o Release.gpg Release
Instead of this -
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
Notice the "-a" difference.
From gpg manpage -
-a --armor
Create ASCII armored output. The default is to create the binary OpenPGP format.
According to this -
...The reason why we avoid ASCII-armored files is that they cannot be used directly by SecureApt..
NOTE:
If the above method doesn't work, as an additional step along with the above mentioned method, try adding these two lines to the ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf file -
cert-digest-algo SHA256
digest-algo SHA256
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
add a comment |
Try using this -
/usr/bin/gpg -bs -o Release.gpg Release
Instead of this -
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
Notice the "-a" difference.
From gpg manpage -
-a --armor
Create ASCII armored output. The default is to create the binary OpenPGP format.
According to this -
...The reason why we avoid ASCII-armored files is that they cannot be used directly by SecureApt..
NOTE:
If the above method doesn't work, as an additional step along with the above mentioned method, try adding these two lines to the ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf file -
cert-digest-algo SHA256
digest-algo SHA256
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
add a comment |
Try using this -
/usr/bin/gpg -bs -o Release.gpg Release
Instead of this -
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
Notice the "-a" difference.
From gpg manpage -
-a --armor
Create ASCII armored output. The default is to create the binary OpenPGP format.
According to this -
...The reason why we avoid ASCII-armored files is that they cannot be used directly by SecureApt..
NOTE:
If the above method doesn't work, as an additional step along with the above mentioned method, try adding these two lines to the ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf file -
cert-digest-algo SHA256
digest-algo SHA256
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
Try using this -
/usr/bin/gpg -bs -o Release.gpg Release
Instead of this -
/usr/bin/gpg -abs -o Release.gpg Release
Notice the "-a" difference.
From gpg manpage -
-a --armor
Create ASCII armored output. The default is to create the binary OpenPGP format.
According to this -
...The reason why we avoid ASCII-armored files is that they cannot be used directly by SecureApt..
NOTE:
If the above method doesn't work, as an additional step along with the above mentioned method, try adding these two lines to the ~/.gnupg/gpg.conf file -
cert-digest-algo SHA256
digest-algo SHA256
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
answered Dec 10 at 14:49
Khushal Sancheti
1
1
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Ask Ubuntu!
- 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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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%2faskubuntu.com%2fquestions%2f1041584%2fgetting-release-the-following-signatures-were-invalid-on-local-repo%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
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