rustup: incorrectly reported signature validation failure (Rust 1.8.0 to Rust 1.21.0, some nightlies)
Problem
Older versions of Rust (on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) report a signature verification failure, so I cannot trust them, so I can’t check which of those versions of Rust my code works on.
Steps
rustup toolchain install 1.8
Possible Solution(s)
No response
Notes
This applies to more than just 1.8, but here is the output for 1.8, which I stopped early.
$ rustup toolchain install 1.8
info: syncing channel updates for '1.8.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu'
65.3 KiB / 65.3 KiB (100 %) 20.0 KiB/s in 8s ETA: 0s
warning: Signature verification failed for 'https://static.rust-lang.org/dist/channel-rust-1.8.0.toml'
info: latest update on 2016-04-12, rust version 1.8.0 (db2939409 2016-04-11)
info: downloading component 'cargo'
167.5 KiB / 3.9 MiB ( 4 %) 0 B/s in 2s ETA: Unknown^C
Rustup version
rustup 1.25.2 (17db695f1 2023-02-01)
Installed toolchains
Default host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
rustup home: /home/chaitrex/.rustup
installed toolchains
--------------------
stable-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (default)
beta-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
nightly-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.0.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.1.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.2.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.3.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.4.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.5.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.6.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
1.7.0-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
active toolchain
----------------
stable-x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu (default)
rustc 1.67.1 (d5a82bbd2 2023-02-07)
About this issue
- Original URL
- State: closed
- Created a year ago
- Comments: 15 (10 by maintainers)
This is happening on 1.67.1 and 1.69.0-nightly for me so I don’t think it’s limited to 1.8 to 1.20.
Just today on macOS.
I’m surprised this was just a warning and it didn’t bail out and require me to manually override. Seems like if this was an actual mismatch, I could be in some trouble and have just downloaded untrusted/unverified code. I do understand that TLS mitigates this; I just kinda expect that if a project does elect to use the extra layer of signature checks, that they serve their purpose and aren’t mere theatre. I could be misunderstanding this warning though.
I don’t think keeping gpg support while accepting sha-1 has any value tbh.