/tech/ - Technology★

>mirrorservice.org

>mirror

<OMG hax, guise tails is compromised

>You can verify using PGP or extension.

>>>/g/

>>996697

i did try. it did not verify.

>>996707

gpg --no-options --keyid-format 0xlong --verify tails-amd64-3.10.1.iso.sig tails-amd64-3.10.1.iso

gpg: Signature made Tue 23 Oct 2018 10:43:45 PM UTC

gpg: using RSA key FE029CB4AAD4788E1D7828E8A8B0F4E45B1B50E2

gpg: BAD signature from "Tails developers (offline long-term identity key) <tails@boum.org>" [unknown]

>>996709

So now, what about having a talk with the devs about your problem?

>>996709

gpg: Signature made Wed 24 Oct 2018 00:43:45 CEST
gpg:                using RSA key FE029CB4AAD4788E1D7828E8A8B0F4E45B1B50E2
gpg: Good signature from "Tails developers (offline long-term identity key) <tails@boum.org>" [unknown]
gpg:                 aka "Tails developers <tails@boum.org>" [unknown]
gpg: WARNING: This key is not certified with a trusted signature!
gpg:          There is no indication that the signature belongs to the owner.
Primary key fingerprint: A490 D0F4 D311 A415 3E2B  B7CA DBB8 02B2 58AC D84F
     Subkey fingerprint: FE02 9CB4 AAD4 788E 1D78  28E8 A8B0 F4E4 5B1B 50E2

No problem here. Downloaded from 2nd link.

>not using Heads

>>996777

<not using sed10qs

>>996709

can you really trust these tho when the sig file is usually on the same site/server that the iso file is on

>nodevs incarge of understanding security