Skip to content

Add fjahr attestations for 1776960000#52

Merged
fjahr merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
pr50x
Jun 12, 2026
Merged

Add fjahr attestations for 1776960000#52
fjahr merged 1 commit into
mainfrom
pr50x

Conversation

@fjahr

@fjahr fjahr commented May 30, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Adds my attestions for #47. Based on #50 which adds the attestations to this repo.

@fjahr

fjahr commented Jun 7, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Ready for review now with #50 merged

@jurraca

jurraca commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

The signature can't be validated, as it seems the signature here was made with EDDSA key C551C7A95C86B6D942C52ECF145F599ECE70D26C, but builder-keys/fjahr.gpg only shows RSA keys. did you mean to update your GPG key as well?

Also update the builder key.
@fjahr

fjahr commented Jun 9, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Somehow the signing subkey was not part of the builder key. I have updated it. But for me, locally, the verification already worked before. Seems it would be better if the verification script would only use the actual builder keys.

@jurraca

jurraca commented Jun 10, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

ACK 06c7a98

Codex suggests a tempdir from gnupg that loads all the builder keys every time. Wish there was a way to do this via a CLI flag.

tmp_gnupg="$(mktemp -d)"
chmod 700 "$tmp_gnupg"
trap 'rm -rf "$tmp_gnupg"' EXIT

GNUPGHOME="$tmp_gnupg" gpg --quiet --batch --import builder-keys/*.gpg
GNUPGHOME="$tmp_gnupg" gpg --quiet --batch --verify SHA256SUMS.asc SHA256SUMS

This would avoid the mismatch between your local and another user's verification. I can PR this separately unless objections on the approach.

@fjahr

fjahr commented Jun 12, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

I can PR this separately unless objections on the approach.

Thanks, I don't think I see anything wrong with this in principle. But I also realized that a simple user error like mine can also be caught quicker by a CI job, so I am adding one here: #55 Since we already have very few eyes here it would help to cut down on unnecessary feedback loops as much as possible.

@fjahr fjahr merged commit bf917a2 into main Jun 12, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants