Case has been open for nearly two years. Just got another response from RH Friday.
See also:
Case Title       : Repo metadata not being published (repo_gpgcheck fails)
Case Number      : 01752320
Case Open Date   : 2016-12-05 10:24:14
Severity         : 3 (Normal)
Problem Type     : Defect / Bug
Most recent comment: On 2018-10-19 02:23:39, Janorkar, Anuja commented:
Unfortunately, we have not received the update on this. We will get back to you as soon as we get an update.
We appreciate your patience.
Best Regards, 
Anuja J. 
Global Support Services, Red Hat"

On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 4:13 PM Trevor Vaughan <> wrote:
Who should I open the request with?

I haven't really seen any differences in DNF from that point of view in Fedora yet.



On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 3:15 PM Steve Grubb <> wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 3:58:01 PM EDT Trevor Vaughan wrote:
> Necromancing this thread!
> Any updates on this Steve?

The answer I was given is like this:

"The keys for checking repo. metadata are only used for those repos.
(so key for repo X can't verify metadata for repo. Y). There are also
CA keys, so you can cycle keys etc. The keys for rpm checking are imported
into the rpm DB and thus. global, but that's an rpm thing."

So, I don't think rpm/yum were intended to solve the security problem you
outlined because its now how software distribution normally works. And if two
repos have the same package, I think you will notice some kind of error/
warning. Feel free to open some kind of request. I also think the dnf
developers may have things a little better security-wise.


Trevor Vaughan
Vice President, Onyx Point, Inc
(410) 541-6699 x788

-- This account not approved for unencrypted proprietary information --
scap-security-guide mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives: