RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1066494 - rpm doesn't understand SHA224 signature, but is possible to add sha224 signature
Summary: rpm doesn't understand SHA224 signature, but is possible to add sha224 signature
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7
Classification: Red Hat
Component: rpm
Version: 7.0
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Panu Matilainen
QA Contact: Patrik Kis
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 608599 608611
Blocks: 582655
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-18 14:25 UTC by Patrik Kis
Modified: 2014-06-18 02:11 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version: rpm-4.11.1-15.el7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 608599
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-06-13 12:47:27 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Patrik Kis 2014-02-18 14:25:28 UTC 
The problem below appeared on RHEL-7.


# rpm -q rpm
rpm-4.11.1-13.el7.x86_64
# rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm 
redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm:
    Header V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID f21541eb: NOKEY
    Header SHA1 digest: OK (ec9d4d8d194174941bd6283ead69e7f8e4542a0a)
    V3 RSA/SHA256 Signature, key ID f21541eb: NOKEY
    MD5 digest: OK (d8d27470af628e544e0968d1c2a6a8d3)
# rpm --addsign redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm 
Enter pass phrase: 
Pass phrase is good.
redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm:

You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: "Joe Tester (with stupid passphrase) <joe>"
1024-bit DSA key, ID 6720FCDD, created 2014-02-17


You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: "Joe Tester (with stupid passphrase) <joe>"
1024-bit DSA key, ID 6720FCDD, created 2014-02-17

# rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm 
redhat-lsb-4.1-24.el7.x86_64.rpm:
    Verify signature: BAD PARAMETERS (267 0x1240830 72 (nil) 0x1243a20)
    Header SHA1 digest: OK (ec9d4d8d194174941bd6283ead69e7f8e4542a0a)
    MD5 digest: OK (d8d27470af628e544e0968d1c2a6a8d3)
    Verify signature: BAD PARAMETERS (1005 0x1240830 72 (nil) 0x1243a20)


+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #608599 +++

Description of problem:
rpm doesn't understand sha224, but is possible sign it with sha224 algorithm.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
rpm-4.8.0-9.el6

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. modify ".gnupg/gpg.conf" to have as first default value H11 (SHA224) in 'personal-digest-preferences' and 'default-preference-list' variables, or in "~/.rpmmacros" change %__gpg_sign_cmd to %{__gpg} --digest-algo sha224 --batch --no-verbose --no-armor --passphrase-fd 3 --no-secmem-warning -u "%{_gpg_name}" -sbo %{__signature_filename} %{__plaintext_filename}
2. run "rpm -addsign some.rpm"
3. run "rpm -v --checksig some.rpm"
  
Actual results:
rpm -v --checksig mod_gnutls-0.5.6-1.md5.x86_64.rpm
mod_gnutls-0.5.6-1.md5.x86_64.rpm:
    Header V3 RSA/Unknown hash algorithm Signature, key ID c842f47e: BAD
    Header SHA1 digest: OK (2a30e68848f8aa15028e160164ce309c26b6f735)
    V3 RSA/MD5 Signature, key ID 40e6c3a4: OK
    V3 RSA/Unknown hash algorithm Signature, key ID c842f47e: BAD
    MD5 digest: OK (7b86a7c836b21679133b77ff7cdce95b)


Expected results:
rpm -v --checksig mod_gnutls-0.5.6-1.md5.x86_64.rpm
mod_gnutls-0.5.6-1.md5.x86_64.rpm:
    Header V3 RSA/SHA224 Signature, key ID c842f47e: OK
    Header SHA1 digest: OK (2a30e68848f8aa15028e160164ce309c26b6f735)
    V3 RSA/MD5 Signature, key ID 40e6c3a4: OK
    V3 RSA/SHA224 Signature, key ID c842f47e: OK
    MD5 digest: OK (7b86a7c836b21679133b77ff7cdce95b)
Comment 2 Panu Matilainen 2014-02-18 16:35:29 UTC 
Heh. It looks like a regression from the outset but is more twisted than that. In bug 608599 rpm permitted signing with a digest which it didn't support (because NSS did not support SHA-224) but now it is supported, only that support is buggy in the path that rpm -Kv signature verification hits:

http://rpm.org/gitweb?p=rpm.git;a=commitdiff;h=85b62554d2632d06f975f90697c4c11c3f180931

Dunno whether I should laugh or cry, but devel_ack+ anyway :)
Comment 4 Panu Matilainen 2014-02-19 08:06:07 UTC 
Fixed in rpm-4.11.1-15.el7, FWIW (this isn't exactly a critical bug really)
Comment 6 Patrik Kis 2014-02-28 10:04:29 UTC 
Verified with: /CoreOS/rpm/Regression/bz608599-rpm-doesnt-accept-signatures-it-cannot-use

OLD: rpm-4.11.1-14.el7

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [   LOG    ] :: Test
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'gpg --batch --gen-key batch' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'gpg --armor --export '<joe>' > joepub.ascii' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm --import joepub.ascii' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'wget http://download.lab.bos.redhat.com/qa/rhts/lookaside/redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm &>checksig.log' (Expected 1, got 1)
:: [   PASS   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should contain 'V3 DSA/SHA1 Signature' 
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running './rpm_addsign.exp redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm abc' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm &>checksig.log' (Expected 1, got 1)
:: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should contain 'V4 DSA/SHA224 Signature' 
:: [   FAIL   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should not contain 'BAD PARAMETERS' 
:: [   LOG    ] :: Duration: 5s
:: [   LOG    ] :: Assertions: 8 good, 2 bad
:: [   FAIL   ] :: RESULT: Test


NEW: rpm-4.11.1-15.el7

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: [   LOG    ] :: Test
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'gpg --batch --gen-key batch' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'gpg --armor --export '<joe>' > joepub.ascii' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm --import joepub.ascii' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'wget http://download.lab.bos.redhat.com/qa/rhts/lookaside/redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm &>checksig.log' (Expected 1, got 1)
:: [   PASS   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should contain 'V3 DSA/SHA1 Signature' 
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running './rpm_addsign.exp redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm abc' (Expected 0, got 0)
:: [   PASS   ] :: Running 'rpm -v --checksig redhat-lsb-3.1-12.3.EL.i386.rpm &>checksig.log' (Expected 1, got 1)
:: [   PASS   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should contain 'V4 DSA/SHA224 Signature' 
:: [   PASS   ] :: File 'checksig.log' should not contain 'BAD PARAMETERS' 
:: [   LOG    ] :: Duration: 3s
:: [   LOG    ] :: Assertions: 10 good, 0 bad
:: [   PASS   ] :: RESULT: Test
Comment 7 Ludek Smid 2014-06-13 12:47:27 UTC 
This request was resolved in Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.0.

Contact your manager or support representative in case you have further questions about the request.
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.