gnutls 3.6.12 fails to build: FAIL: status-request-revoked

OpenSubmitted by Christopher Baines.
Details
7 participants
  • Carl Dong
  • jeremiah
  • Leo Famulari
  • Ludovic Courtès
  • Christopher Baines
  • Marius Bakke
  • Maxime Devos
Owner
unassigned
Severity
important
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 10 Nov 2020 21:49
(address . bug-guix@gnu.org)
87d00los2d.fsf@cbaines.net
I found this when trying to build guile3.0-gnutls:

guix time-machine --commit=94585fffb23079fe71110e2bf99782eb4ccfa12b -- build --no-grafts --check guile3.0-gnutls

FAIL: status-request-revoked
============================

trying NORMAL:-VERS-ALL:+VERS-TLS1.2
received status request
received status request
cert_verify_callback:263: certificate verify status doesn't match: 100402 != 22FAIL status-request-revoked (exit status: 1)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=PIzS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 12 Nov 2020 22:06
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
87v9eaffpa.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:

Toggle quote (13 lines)
> I found this when trying to build guile3.0-gnutls:
>
> guix time-machine --commit=94585fffb23079fe71110e2bf99782eb4ccfa12b -- build --no-grafts --check guile3.0-gnutls
>
>
> FAIL: status-request-revoked
> ============================
>
> trying NORMAL:-VERS-ALL:+VERS-TLS1.2
> received status request
> received status request
> cert_verify_callback:263: certificate verify status doesn't match: 100402 != 22FAIL status-request-revoked (exit status: 1)

This was fixed upstream between 3.6.12 and 3.6.14 with this patch by
Bernhard (it’s a small world!):

Toggle snippet (15 lines)
commit ed208fe55f31478732fd6cc394f9576b315a42cd
Author: Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bwiedemann@suse.de>
Date: Sun Apr 5 15:09:57 2020 +0200

tests: Fix status-request-revoked after 2020-10-24
included certs expire 2020-10-24 so this test fails after that date.
Fixes #967
This patch was done while working on reproducible builds for openSUSE.
Signed-off-by: Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bwiedemann@suse.de>

The question for us becomes how to ensure long-term reproducibility in
the presence of such bugs.

In this case, I think the only solution would be to change the system
clock when one rebuilds GnuTLS (or to use ‘--without-tests=gnutls’, but
you end up with different derivations, which is not necessarily
desirable).

Thoughts?

Ludo’.
M
M
Marius Bakke wrote on 12 Nov 2020 22:18
(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zh3mb7fr.fsf@gnu.org
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (10 lines)
> The question for us becomes how to ensure long-term reproducibility in
> the presence of such bugs.
>
> In this case, I think the only solution would be to change the system
> clock when one rebuilds GnuTLS (or to use ‘--without-tests=gnutls’, but
> you end up with different derivations, which is not necessarily
> desirable).
>
> Thoughts?

There is a related bug report here:


Perhaps we could make a "--with-system-clock" option for 'guix build'
that instructs the daemon to fake the system time?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFDBAEBCgAtFiEEu7At3yzq9qgNHeZDoqBt8qM6VPoFAl+tppgPHG1hcml1c0Bn
bnUub3JnAAoJEKKgbfKjOlT6SZUH/2JQce28Rehio2Dk1QbAXM2/8Peo8xhfOnA8
NYzJuUkjaqf8LNEs7uB/4zGsJ51IHznTqLecuqdjO+g6zEpzzNrdXmvVqv9A2Xcy
GGa+ci5hUVKErrG+KGTQEiEtkRUjkzBKGZKv2jc4MpnXJgsDl0qidIZIOi/JmuC1
vtSTVM09dG8pj79MefTFKuJtRv0xEpXNRiaJNOjHO5jiThimoiKl15XtSgexPgU0
mzv9MV2Po3QRbhc/EE49P/oxuJqjmwFSPdCwL/0YlNEemr2bQx18ps6H9y9Hmg7W
5awKGRn0vAK5I45i0jyJyVWHk0a90lEIJSLwJF4Pul2CmpJsVm0=
=g9FH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 15 Nov 2020 12:05
(name . Marius Bakke)(address . marius@gnu.org)
87zh3iani0.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Marius Bakke <marius@gnu.org> skribis:

Toggle quote (19 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> The question for us becomes how to ensure long-term reproducibility in
>> the presence of such bugs.
>>
>> In this case, I think the only solution would be to change the system
>> clock when one rebuilds GnuTLS (or to use ‘--without-tests=gnutls’, but
>> you end up with different derivations, which is not necessarily
>> desirable).
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> There is a related bug report here:
>
> https://issues.guix.gnu.org/39310
>
> Perhaps we could make a "--with-system-clock" option for 'guix build'
> that instructs the daemon to fake the system time?

How would it fake it though?

There are time_namespaces(7), but it’s only for CLOCK_MONOTONIC and
CLOCK_BOOTTIME.

LD_PRELOAD like ‘datefudge’ does is probably not a viable option.

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 16 Nov 2020 16:04
control message for bug #44559
(address . control@debbugs.gnu.org)
87zh3huyuf.fsf@gnu.org
severity 44559 important
quit
J
J
jeremiah wrote on 31 Dec 2020 01:27
Solution
(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
87k0syddlu.fsf@ITSx01.pdp10.guru
I created a procedure to work around the build failure and enable a
successful build:


# when gnutls-3.6.12 build breaks you need to do:
# run the following as root
# turn off networking
ip link set enp0s25 down
# Fixup the time so that the build will succeed
timedatectl set-ntp false
timedatectl set-time '2020-10-01'
# Try to build but it will absolutely fail by lack of source if you
# don't enable networking or because you enable networking.
# But turn on networking when specified below
guix time-machine --commit=94585fffb23079fe71110e2bf99782eb4ccfa12b --
# build --no-grafts --check guile3.0-gnutls
# after it finishes building
# /gnu/store/vhphki5sg9xkdhh2pbc8gi6vhpfzryf0-gnutls-3.6.12.drv
# and starts building
# /gnu/store/akm0wl58avib46g3d9razlfzfgfg8m6m-python-3.8.2.drv...
# but before it begins building
# /gnu/store/bja7gqzxr62a0akid0rpzmynzy78nkwg-zstd-1.4.4.tar.gz.drv.
# Fix the time and turn on networking as it has additional things to
# download.
# specifically
# and substitutes for some reason
# failing to do so will result in you needing to repeat the above steps
# again.
timedatectl set-time '$current_date'
timedatectl set-ntp true
# turn on networking
ip link set enp0s25 up
# it'll fail building because the time is current again
# But that is fine, we now will not need networking for this build cycle
# and thus the altered time will be fine and the build will be
# successful this time
# turn off networking
ip link set enp0s25 down
# Fixup the time so that the build will succeed
timedatectl set-ntp false
timedatectl set-time '2020-10-01'
#guix build gnutls@3.6.12 finally
guix time-machine --commit=94585fffb23079fe71110e2bf99782eb4ccfa12b --
# build --no-grafts --check guile3.0-gnutls
# wait until it completes.
# Then we can put the system back in a working state
timedatectl set-time '$current_date'
timedatectl set-ntp true
# turn on networking
ip link set enp0s25 up
C
C
Carl Dong wrote on 16 Feb 2021 22:00
Re: bug#44559
(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
CF6115A8-8536-4087-BC71-F6BC05D74F4F@carldong.me
Hi all,

As bitcoin core begins the planning to officially transition to Guix-based releases, I've had many community members build guix v1.2.0 from source and afterward attempt `--bootstrap --no-substitutes` builds. As you may imagine, they are getting stuck on this gnutls problem and cannot proceed further.

I'm wondering:

1. Is there a workaround that does not involve changing the system time? We have attempted several flags:
1. --with-graft=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
2. --without-tests=gnutls
3. --with-input=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
These attempts all failed to work around this bug, and I’m curious as to why that would be. My guess would be that when we do `--bootstrap`, Guix bootstraps itself first without taking into account these flags?

2. Since bootstrappability is one of the core tenets of Guix, might it be appropriate to cut a v1.2.1 release with this problem (and any other potential bootstrap problems) fixed? (Happy to discuss in separate thread if more appropriate)

Cheers,
Carl Dong
contact@carldong.me
"I fight for the users"
L
L
Leo Famulari wrote on 16 Feb 2021 22:49
Re: bug#44559:
(name . Carl Dong)(address . contact@carldong.me)(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
YCw+Bh1532zjxRRA@jasmine.lan
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 04:00:11PM -0500, Carl Dong wrote:
Toggle quote (14 lines)
> Hi all,
>
> As bitcoin core begins the planning to officially transition to Guix-based releases, I've had many community members build guix v1.2.0 from source and afterward attempt `--bootstrap --no-substitutes` builds. As you may imagine, they are getting stuck on this gnutls problem and cannot proceed further.
>
> I'm wondering:
>
> 1. Is there a workaround that does not involve changing the system time? We have attempted several flags:
> 1. --with-graft=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
> 2. --without-tests=gnutls
> 3. --with-input=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
> These attempts all failed to work around this bug, and I’m curious as to why that would be. My guess would be that when we do `--bootstrap`, Guix bootstraps itself first without taking into account these flags?
>
> 2. Since bootstrappability is one of the core tenets of Guix, might it be appropriate to cut a v1.2.1 release with this problem (and any other potential bootstrap problems) fixed? (Happy to discuss in separate thread if more appropriate)

You should see what the Guix maintainers say about this.

My personal opinion is that you should fork Guix your use case. If you
are building from the bootstrap, there is little added cost to making
minor adjustments like disabling this test. You can periodically re-sync
your fork with GNU Guix as convenient. And it's probably more in tune
with your threat model. [0]

This problem of "expiring software" has occurred several times in Guix's
history and I'm sure it will happen again. In general, users are
expected to use substitutes to work around it. They are no worse off
than with traditional binary distros in that case.

[0] Savannah is great but lacking the resources to devote to security.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 19 Feb 2021 16:33
(name . Carl Dong)(address . contact@carldong.me)
87lfbkkr6r.fsf@gnu.org
Hi Carl,

Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me> skribis:

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> As bitcoin core begins the planning to officially transition to Guix-based releases, I've had many community members build guix v1.2.0 from source and afterward attempt `--bootstrap --no-substitutes` builds. As you may imagine, they are getting stuck on this gnutls problem and cannot proceed further.

Yeah. :-/

Toggle quote (8 lines)
> I'm wondering:
>
> 1. Is there a workaround that does not involve changing the system time? We have attempted several flags:
> 1. --with-graft=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
> 2. --without-tests=gnutls
> 3. --with-input=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
> These attempts all failed to work around this bug, and I’m curious as to why that would be. My guess would be that when we do `--bootstrap`, Guix bootstraps itself first without taking into account these flags?

‘--without-tests’ should work, but you need to pass the right version
number I guess?

Toggle quote (2 lines)
> 2. Since bootstrappability is one of the core tenets of Guix, might it be appropriate to cut a v1.2.1 release with this problem (and any other potential bootstrap problems) fixed? (Happy to discuss in separate thread if more appropriate)

I agree it’s a problem, and yes, it would probably be a good idea to
release 1.2.1 with the upgraded GnuTLS we now have in ‘master’.

Longer-term, we need to find a way to address or avoid this issue. A
brute-force approach would be to have the build machines at ci.guix run
with a clock ten years ahead. That should generally be fine since the
only place where timestamps matter are unmodified upstream tarballs. In
all other cases, mtime is set to 1.

Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
farm. Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?

Thanks,
Ludo’.
M
M
Maxime Devos wrote on 19 Feb 2021 19:32
5d72d9c66d0e9f70f6ff1fb3b4d08ed530551288.camel@telenet.be
Hi Guix,

On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 16:33 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
Toggle quote (7 lines)
> [...]
> Longer-term, we need to find a way to address or avoid this issue. A
> brute-force approach would be to have the build machines at ci.guix run
> with a clock ten years ahead. That should generally be fine since the
> only place where timestamps matter are unmodified upstream tarballs. In
> all other cases, mtime is set to 1.

Alternatively, could the build container be adjusted to always begin at
1970-01-01, using ‘time namespaces’?


(Of course, someone needs to find the time to write the patches first. Maybe
I'll have a try at it eventually, but probably not anytime soon.)

Also, is there any particular reason to set the clock only ten years ahead,
and not, say, a millenia or two? Some possible reasons:

* year 2038,2446 problem: the ext2 and ext4 filesystems have a restricted
date range

IMO, the year 2038 problem is a bug and affected packages should simply be fixed.
But perhaps reality is a little more complicated.

Greetings,
Maxime
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iI0EABYIADUWIQTB8z7iDFKP233XAR9J4+4iGRcl7gUCYDAEQhccbWF4aW1lZGV2
b3NAdGVsZW5ldC5iZQAKCRBJ4+4iGRcl7kPYAQCWmod5dnlTmIL1qglgDABubuZz
yIEjBAIK/uHVrA0dZAD+IcBDUvCqH9f1+T99P4Y0RxasGyd4fDOUFWrCI23sNAY=
=dA4d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


C
C
Carl Dong wrote on 20 Feb 2021 00:49
(address . 44559@debbugs.gnu.org)
E95315E4-134B-43E0-BE5F-575B69030940@carldong.me
Hi Guix!

Thanks to all of you for your thoughtful replies!

On Feb 19, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
Toggle quote (2 lines)
> I agree it’s a problem, and yes, it would probably be a good idea to
> release 1.2.1 with the upgraded GnuTLS we now have in ‘master’.
I’m very heartened by your affirmation of the project’s support of bootstrappability and building from source. :-)

In addition, I think it would be good to make sure that the package transformation options are powerful enough to allow users to sidestep these problems in their own workflow and decrease the pressure on maintainers.

On Feb 19, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
Toggle quote (3 lines)
> ‘--without-tests’ should work, but you need to pass the right version
> number I guess?

Oh! That may be the case. I am using `guix time-machine` however, and that does not yet have the `--without-tests` flag, I have opened bug#46650 so that we can discuss that issue there.

On Feb 19, 2021, at 1:32 PM, Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> wrote:
Toggle quote (2 lines)
> Alternatively, could the build container be adjusted to always begin at
> 1970-01-01, using ‘time namespaces’?
Unfortunately, as Ludovic mentioned earlier in this thread, time_namespaces(7) is only for CLOCK_MONOTONIC and. CLOCK_BOOTTIME. :-(

Carl Dong
contact@carldong.me
"I fight for the users"

Toggle quote (37 lines)
> On Feb 19, 2021, at 10:33 AM, Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Carl,
>
> Carl Dong <contact@carldong.me> skribis:
>
>> As bitcoin core begins the planning to officially transition to Guix-based releases, I've had many community members build guix v1.2.0 from source and afterward attempt `--bootstrap --no-substitutes` builds. As you may imagine, they are getting stuck on this gnutls problem and cannot proceed further.
>
> Yeah. :-/
>
>> I'm wondering:
>>
>> 1. Is there a workaround that does not involve changing the system time? We have attempted several flags:
>> 1. --with-graft=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
>> 2. --without-tests=gnutls
>> 3. --with-input=gnutls=gnutls@3.6.14
>> These attempts all failed to work around this bug, and I’m curious as to why that would be. My guess would be that when we do `--bootstrap`, Guix bootstraps itself first without taking into account these flags?
>
> ‘--without-tests’ should work, but you need to pass the right version
> number I guess?
>
>> 2. Since bootstrappability is one of the core tenets of Guix, might it be appropriate to cut a v1.2.1 release with this problem (and any other potential bootstrap problems) fixed? (Happy to discuss in separate thread if more appropriate)
>
> I agree it’s a problem, and yes, it would probably be a good idea to
> release 1.2.1 with the upgraded GnuTLS we now have in ‘master’.
>
> Longer-term, we need to find a way to address or avoid this issue. A
> brute-force approach would be to have the build machines at ci.guix run
> with a clock ten years ahead. That should generally be fine since the
> only place where timestamps matter are unmodified upstream tarballs. In
> all other cases, mtime is set to 1.
>
> Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
> farm. Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?
>
> Thanks,
> Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Feb 2021 14:46
(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)
87v9amj1hn.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Maxime Devos <maximedevos@telenet.be> skribis:

Toggle quote (13 lines)
> On Fri, 2021-02-19 at 16:33 +0100, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>> [...]
>> Longer-term, we need to find a way to address or avoid this issue. A
>> brute-force approach would be to have the build machines at ci.guix run
>> with a clock ten years ahead. That should generally be fine since the
>> only place where timestamps matter are unmodified upstream tarballs. In
>> all other cases, mtime is set to 1.
>
> Alternatively, could the build container be adjusted to always begin at
> 1970-01-01, using ‘time namespaces’?
>
> Linux: https://lwn.net/Articles/766089/

Unfortunately, time namespaces are just for CLOCK_{MONOTONIC,BOOTTIME},
which I think is of little use here:


Toggle quote (10 lines)
> Also, is there any particular reason to set the clock only ten years ahead,
> and not, say, a millenia or two? Some possible reasons:
>
> * year 2038,2446 problem: the ext2 and ext4 filesystems have a restricted
> date range
> * year 2038 problem: https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/Host-Interface.html#Host-Interface
>
> IMO, the year 2038 problem is a bug and affected packages should simply be fixed.
> But perhaps reality is a little more complicated.

Yeah, one problem at a time. :-)

Setting it 10 years ahead would cache the kind of issue we’re talking
about, while not opening the Y2038 can of worms. I think we need to try
that out and see how it goes.

Ludo’.
L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 20 Feb 2021 15:12
Detecting “expiring” builds
(name . Maxime Devos)(address . maximedevos@telenet.be)
8735xqj0b0.fsf_-_@gnu.org
It occurred to me that, just like we have childhurds, we could provide a
service that sets up a sub-Guix System running in a VM with its clock
set years ahead, and you would offload to that. That’s not perfect, but
it’s a rather easy addition.

Another option would be to have built-in support in the daemon. If you
turn on some option, it would transparently run derivation builds in
qemu-user (does that support changing the system date?) or similar, but
that’s more work.

Ludo’.
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 22 Feb 2021 23:36
Re: bug#44559:
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
875z2jn30q.fsf@cbaines.net
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (3 lines)
> Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
> farm. Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?

I'm currently thinking about attempting these kind of things (testing
building derivations under different conditions) through the agent tags
in the Guix Build Coordinator.

I haven't used this functionality yet, but it's mostly implemented. The
idea is that agents have tags, that describe various attributes that are
important (time=normal, time=future, maybe for example), and builds can
also be targeted at specific agents by tagging the builds with those
same tags.

Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure a separate build farm is
needed, it would be good to just incorperate this in to the build farm
used for testing patches and non-master branches.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=IyUw
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

L
L
Ludovic Courtès wrote on 23 Feb 2021 09:41
(name . Christopher Baines)(address . mail@cbaines.net)
87o8gb6us7.fsf@gnu.org
Hi,

Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:

Toggle quote (15 lines)
> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
>> farm. Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?
>
> I'm currently thinking about attempting these kind of things (testing
> building derivations under different conditions) through the agent tags
> in the Guix Build Coordinator.
>
> I haven't used this functionality yet, but it's mostly implemented. The
> idea is that agents have tags, that describe various attributes that are
> important (time=normal, time=future, maybe for example), and builds can
> also be targeted at specific agents by tagging the builds with those
> same tags.

Sounds nice! Also varying kernels I guess.

Toggle quote (4 lines)
> Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure a separate build farm is
> needed, it would be good to just incorperate this in to the build farm
> used for testing patches and non-master branches.

Sure. For the build-in-the-future thing, I think we could just do that
by default; what I meant is that we just need to double-check beforehand
that nothing breaks badly.

Thanks,
Ludo’.
C
C
Christopher Baines wrote on 23 Feb 2021 09:55
(name . Ludovic Courtès)(address . ludo@gnu.org)
8735xnmadw.fsf@cbaines.net
Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

Toggle quote (21 lines)
> Hi,
>
> Christopher Baines <mail@cbaines.net> skribis:
>
>> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:
>>
>>> Perhaps we could start by testing this hypothesis on a separate build
>>> farm. Chris, Mathieu, WDYT?
>>
>> I'm currently thinking about attempting these kind of things (testing
>> building derivations under different conditions) through the agent tags
>> in the Guix Build Coordinator.
>>
>> I haven't used this functionality yet, but it's mostly implemented. The
>> idea is that agents have tags, that describe various attributes that are
>> important (time=normal, time=future, maybe for example), and builds can
>> also be targeted at specific agents by tagging the builds with those
>> same tags.
>
> Sounds nice! Also varying kernels I guess.

Yeah, there's a whole range of variations it would be nice to
methodically test against (filesystems, Linux versions, system time, one
vs many cores, ...).

Toggle quote (8 lines)
>> Where I'm going with this is that I'm not sure a separate build farm is
>> needed, it would be good to just incorperate this in to the build farm
>> used for testing patches and non-master branches.
>
> Sure. For the build-in-the-future thing, I think we could just do that
> by default; what I meant is that we just need to double-check beforehand
> that nothing breaks badly.

Ah, I guess that might work, if I have some time, I'll have a look in to
making the necessary machine changes.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQKlBAEBCgCPFiEEPonu50WOcg2XVOCyXiijOwuE9XcFAmA0wutfFIAAAAAALgAo
aXNzdWVyLWZwckBub3RhdGlvbnMub3BlbnBncC5maWZ0aGhvcnNlbWFuLm5ldDNF
ODlFRUU3NDU4RTcyMEQ5NzU0RTBCMjVFMjhBMzNCMEI4NEY1NzcRHG1haWxAY2Jh
aW5lcy5uZXQACgkQXiijOwuE9XehGRAAld83UM+Ugw1JQ02r3N1BA5URMhNuJVXg
b7mVH+IgU4xIlnLzC34vyKV3nnmXmsJuf0dOK98XrXQcaCoBin01f29unuMMZl2s
gXTzpeRRAUlCL16tpopPQaWVFlOw2l+0yzVU+E1WB1Twa762hs5WAVF4hV5qfUQv
djgOVqL1+/Pg0EMlvMQSfUCoWIJdUzI/q6P7HENSkmboNFk5tHaXGblL0XJ5pfQX
e/XRja88GKb3ITvgeluepc64eE1qVmvaXdaYjknejPbbuCQSdk/3Mwb9Ro3tmoBq
Y4czl0xUe0fYK6WxSvBzIhKEK1dDHyMJOvQKfdYMOs3/Q3rVtgZ2UJQxK0d1HxGz
TVgzQwzArRbNXDG1xaEa3tBO8MMDHijIU7IpByxXBAclaGZXGoU9szWJ9GLV2zCZ
MOWRrklB+xWkMHXl3NIW30akJjufVwKPQNMpHF8X2mXopnRGpiS2Xro+uyqyqo/2
dnLraS16Zcnlyxax7/rUQqS3PZCdCWqTsCpQmiNbD2wv7aleJG1HVsGJ+Gq6+mxI
LYFafaysvIXwV8JthaNvB9XEju4N9dnWRhbulT5W3Hc/x129U2WDBqOlQQPQnOvH
Azq/v+U/aF8UWjJMdQBlQ5z0rxrpTKnmJ8rK1MURick+oru7dnTjc4mbAcyDDSs3
uWd5P+C3u5o=
=Ag9k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

?