Hi -
I am trying to upgrade to Armory 93.2 on Ubuntu 12.04 64-bit, on an online machine (ie, not using the Offline Bundle), following the instructions here:
https://bitcoinarmory.com/download/(I prefer to do this manually via a terminal, rather than using the secure upgrade included in the Armory GUI.)
When doing the GPG verification, I run the following command:
dpkg-sig --verify *.deb
This produces only the following output:
> Processing armory_0.93.2_ubuntu-64bit.deb...
- ie, the output does
not include the following line, which should have appeared according to the instructions:
> GOODSIG _gpgbuilder 821F122936BDD565366AC36A4AB16AEA98832223 1353699840
Why is this line not appearing? It looks pretty important!
If this line doesn't appear, is there any way of being sure of the integrity of the downloaded *.deb file?
The only reason I am using Armory is because I am paranoid about security, so when this kind of inconsistency happens, it gets me worried.
I will have to delay my plans to start using Armory until a satisfactory explanation is provided of what is going on here.
Transcript:Here is the full transcript of commands and outputs from my terminal session, running Ubuntu 12.04 (64-bit):
$ wget -c https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.93.2_ubuntu-64bit.deb
$ wget -c https://s3.amazonaws.com/bitcoinarmory-releases/armory_0.93.2_sha256sum.txt.asc
$ wget -c https://bitcoinarmory.com/Alan-C.-Reiner-Offline-Signing-Key-alan@bitcoinarmory.com-0x98832223-pub.asc
$ ar vx armory_0.93.2_ubuntu-64bit.deb
x - debian-binary
x - control.tar.gz
x - data.tar.xz
$ ls -l
total 10552
-rw-rw-r-- 1 userx userx 9743 Oct 15 15:39 Alan-C.-Reiner-Offline-Signing-Key-alan@bitcoinarmory.com-0x98832223-pub.asc
-rw-rw-r-- 1 userx userx 1676 Jun 7 22:38 armory_0.93.2_sha256sum.txt.asc
-rw-rw-r-- 1 userx userx 5389722 Jun 7 22:36 armory_0.93.2_ubuntu-64bit.deb
-rw-r--r-- 1 userx userx 11042 Oct 15 16:57 control.tar.gz
-rw-r--r-- 1 userx userx 5378488 Oct 15 16:57 data.tar.xz
-rw-r--r-- 1 userx userx 4 Oct 15 16:57 debian-binary
$ gpg --recv-keys --keyserver keyserver.ubuntu.com 98832223
gpg: requesting key 98832223 from hkp server keyserver.ubuntu.com
gpg: key 98832223: "Alan C. Reiner (Offline Signing Key)
" not changed
gpg: Total number processed: 1
gpg: unchanged: 1
$ sudo apt-get install dpkg-sig
[sudo] password for userx:
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree
Reading state information... Done
dpkg-sig is already the newest version.
0 upgraded, 0 newly installed, 0 to remove and 999 not upgraded.
$ dpkg-sig --verify *.deb
Processing armory_0.93.2_ubuntu-64bit.deb...
$
Note (1):The following link on stackexchange recommended running the 'ar vx' command, which also occurs in the above transcript.
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/35840/verify-offline-bitcoin-bundle-on-ubuntuIn the transcript and file listing shown at the above link (involving an older version of Armory), a file '_gpgbuilder' is extracted.
However, in the current version of Armory, no file '_gpgbuilder' is extracted.
I wonder if this file '_gpgbuilder' is necessary in order for the command 'dpkg-sig --verify *.deb' to work properly?
Note (2):The download instructions mention that the offline signing key is "Also available on MIT PGP Public Key Server", at the following link:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=bitcoinarmory+offline&op=indexThis evidently gets translated from http to https when clicked on - ie, it goes here:
https://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=bitcoinarmory+offline&op=indexIn my brower (Tor 5.0.3 / Mozilla Firefox), it went to a page saying:
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to pgp.mit.edu:11371.
SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.
(Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long)
The page you are trying to view cannot be shown because the authenticity of the received data could not be verified.
Please contact the website owners to inform them of this problem.
Is this something I should be worried about?
Note (3):I can't get the tabs to work on the downloads page here:
https://bitcoinarmory.com/download/#tab-prehttps://bitcoinarmory.com/download/#tab-stableI'm running Tor 5.0.3, and I allowed all scripts on the page.
Note (4):The wording may be unclear (or the version numbers outdated) in this section:
"Offline bundles for Ubuntu 12.04 have been removed in 0.93.1 due to compatibility issues. Please use the offline bundles posted on the 0.92.3 tab, which is perfectly compatible when paired with an online computer using 0.93.1."
I want to use 0.93.2, so does anything in the above paragraph pertain to me?
Comment:I assume the issues mentioned above are probably innocuous, perhaps due to instructions on the Armory website not being updated to keep in synch with latest software release, or perhaps due to problems at other websites such as pgp.mit.edu. (If so, is there some other website which can be used as an alternative instead of pgp.mit.edu, or some mirror?)
If I were merely installing some other software where security wasn't paramount, then I would of course ignore these probably minor issues and simply plunge ahead and start using the software.
However, the reason I chose to use Armory is because I want to be absolutely certain about security.
So I will unfortunately not be able to start using Armory if an apparently crucial confirmation message involving GPG fails to appear, or if a website involving GPG can't be displayed due to some problem apparently involving SSL. This is an exercise in security, not in expediency, so when something strange like this happens, it seems like it is imperative to put the installation on hold and report it and await further clarification.
I do understand that the Armory developers probably have much bigger things that they're dealing with - such as the crypto and security involved in the Python and C++ code of the Armory software itself.
But it's important to also make sure the instructions and links on the website are consistent and up-to-date. Otherwise all that great crypto software engineering might go to waste, if users get scared off by these unexpected GPG and SSL messages when trying to verify the integrity of the downloaded files, perhaps due to outdated instructions or bad links on the downloads page.
Thanks for any help!