RE: failed verification & connectivity ? was Re: [Help-gnunet] gnunetd segmentation fault 0.5.5 + backtrace

[tapiov]

I am still seeing some of the CRC failed and session key failed msgs
but they are less common now. My gnunet-stats | grep connected
returns a constant 0 BUT still I am d/lng a file at the same time???

~/bin > ./gnunet-stats | grep connected
# currently connected nodes                                 :                0

WTF? :)

BR,

Tapio

> > I am getting following warnings, are these normal :
> >
> > Aug 24 18:13:08 WARNING: verifySKS: host
> > 2F7A9C9A4D62E128EDD5D444346F129F9916CAC8 for sessionkey exchange not
> known
> > Aug 24 18:13:08 WARNING: session key from
> > 2F7A9C9A4D62E128EDD5D444346F129F9916CAC8 failed verification, ignored!
> > Aug 24 18:13:29 WARNING: verifySKS: host
> > 0949054F82BC25E2D9F696C771F3360D6588C2B1 for sessionkey exchange not
> known
> > Aug 24 18:13:29 WARNING: session key from
> > 0949054F82BC25E2D9F696C771F3360D6588C2B1 failed verification, ignored!
> > Aug 24 18:13:42 WARNING: CRC failed from
> > A1FB8A180FBBC6C9BE11415DC7D3B1FDC0F9CE54, msg ignored (wrong skey?)
> > Aug 24 18:13:42 WARNING: CRC failed from
> > 4A0B917BB74182ABE30A591E791C8A0FAEAD27C8, msg ignored (wrong skey?)
> 
> The "wrong skey" can happen in normal operation but should be rare. The "host
> 
> XXX for sessionkey exchange not known" is also generally harmless but should
> 
> not happen. The "failed verification" should NOT happen in practice and is an
> 
> indicator that the RSA-signing of either your peer or the other peer has some
> 
> problem. If your peer actually connects to other peers, it is probably not 
> you (see output ofgnunet-stats | grep connected).
> 
> To summarize, the warnings are definitely harmless if you can connect to
> other 
> peers (according to gnunet-stats).
>