Bug 2342222 - SHA-1 still allowed in RPM context, should have been disabled again in Fedora 39+
Summary: SHA-1 still allowed in RPM context, should have been disabled again in Fedora...
Keywords:
Status: NEW
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: crypto-policies
Version: 42
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Red Hat Crypto Team
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 2241019
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2025-01-27 10:15 UTC by Fabio Valentini
Modified: 2025-02-26 13:48 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:
Type: Bug
Embargoed:
fedora-admin-xmlrpc: mirror+


Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Gitlab redhat-crypto fedora-crypto-policies merge_requests 224 0 None opened Revert "rpm-sequoia: allow 1024 bit DSA and SHA-1 per FeSCO decision 2960" 2025-01-29 13:24:22 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker FC-1419 0 None None None 2025-01-27 10:15:58 UTC

Description Fabio Valentini 2025-01-27 10:15:39 UTC
Description of problem:

The FESCo-requested "stay" (https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2960) to temporarily allow SHA1 in the RPM context for Fedora 38 seems to still be in effect:

This should have been removed in Fedora 39+, but it is still present in git HEAD today:
https://gitlab.com/redhat-crypto/fedora-crypto-policies/-/blob/master/policies/DEFAULT.pol#L87

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Confirmed in crypto-policies-20241029-1.git8baf557.fc41.noarch.

How reproducible:
Always.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Check contents of the rpm-sequoia crypto policy.
2. Check values of sha1.collision_resistance and sha1.second_preimage_resistance settings.

Actual results:
They are enabled.

Expected results:
They should be disabled.

Additional info:
N/A

Comment 1 Clemens Lang 2025-01-27 10:23:41 UTC
So what's the expected course of action now? Do you want us to just drop that in rawhide, or do you want another system wide change proposal for this change?

Comment 2 Fabio Valentini 2025-01-27 10:31:55 UTC
Well, putting the restrictions on SHA-1 back was already approved by FESCo for Fedora 39 ...
I'd say announce it on the "devel" list and make the change for Rawhide / F42+. Doing it in already released versions doesn't seem like a good idea.

Comment 3 Alexander Sosedkin 2025-01-29 14:38:57 UTC
I was about to do that, but I've run some tests beforehand
and I've discovered that Chrome still isn't installable,
which is tracked in bz2241019.
Sorry, I don't think we can land this without RPM first learning to use the right signature.

Comment 4 Panu Matilainen 2025-01-31 08:44:49 UTC
To clarify, the issue tracked in bug 2241019 is a dnf, not rpm thing. I even pointed out a simple fix to it in 2023.
Of course since then, we've moved on to dnf5, and I don't know whether it uses the same logic in that place or if it has some other related problems.

Comment 5 Aoife Moloney 2025-02-26 13:48:59 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora Linux 42 development cycle.
Changing version to 42.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.