ken,
could you please comment this? We should at least fix the silent
get_remote_manifest failure for the next release.
ede/duply.net
On 23.11.2010 19:18, address@hidden wrote:
Boom. And here comes the fun part:
Exporting LANG=en_US.UTF8 enables incremental backups without private
key.
After further investigating. This seems to be a bug in
collections.py:get_remote_manifest() ca. line 211.
http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~duplicity-team/duplicity/0.6-series/annotate/head%3A/duplicity/collections.py#L211<http://bazaar.launchpad.net/%7Eduplicity-team/duplicity/0.6-series/annotate/head%3A/duplicity/collections.py#L211>
It seems to catch "No secret key" errors, given the output language is
english ;) .. and returns None in such a case.
I see three bugs here.
-One is blindly catching "no secret key errors"
- Two is interpreting the text output and not using the locale unaffected
--status-fd output
- Three, falling back to local manifest in check_manifests() when
get_remote_manifest() returns None. Shouldn't the remote be authoritative
here?
Ken would you explain how you'd suggest to implement a checksumming
procedure to remove necessity of private key altogether?
I could implement it and would remove "no secret key" exception. I also
don't see the rationale for the
#Following by MDR. Should catch if remote encrypted with
# public key w/o secret key
comment there. Why should symmetric decryption complain about missing
private key without a reason?
ede/duply.net
On 23.11.2010 14:32, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
Yes, that is correct.
A a hash of an encrypted form of the local manifest compared to a hash
of
the remote manifest might be the way to go on this.
...Ken
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 7:17 AM,<address@hidden> wrote:
I remember to have read that no private key is necessary anymore. So my
memory fails here.
Unless this comparison is dealt differently (maybe in a future
duplicity?)
at least one private key for a key used to encrypt has to reside on the
duplicity box?
.. thanks ede/duply.net
On 23.11.2010 14:07, Kenneth Loafman wrote:
To guarantee that the remote and local caches are the same duplicity
compares the manifest files. The remote manifest is encrypted, thus
the
need for the private key.
...Ken
On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 6:49 AM,<address@hidden> wrote:
In theory duplicity does not need the private key of a backups
encryption
public key for incremental backup anymore. This is possible due to
the
unencrypted contents of the archive dir.
In practice a duply user now stumbled over the following. I can
reproduce
this.
Generate a key pair. Export it.
Delete the private key from your keyring.
Do an initial backup with duplicity.
Do a second backup or force an incremental backup. This fails with an
error
like
"The matching private key is missing"
What is going on here. Can somebody more familiar with the encryption
code
please confirm this behaviour. I tried version 0.6.06, 0.6.08 and
0.6.11
..
none works as expected.
Commandline generated by duply is
TMPDIR='/tmp' /srv/www/vhosts/
jamoke.net/_apps/duplicity-0.6.06/bin/duplicity --encrypt-key
DA3FEEDB
--verbosity '4' --exclude-globbing-filelist '/srv/www/vhosts/
jamoke.net/.duply/keytest/exclude' '~/duply_dev'
'file:///tmp/keyt3esrt'
thanks ede/duply.net
_______________________________________________
Duplicity-talk mailing list
address@hidden
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/duplicity-talk