They wanted to generate a new one about a year ago [0], but seems they
did not get around to that and reused the existing key with an updated
expiry.
[0]: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/576a10b6-2a41-49b0-8bae-8abcb6786e93@turnkeylinux.org/
One can see that this is the same key with just updated expiry by e.g.
comparing the output of `sq packet dump` for old and new.
That comparison shows the following, with re-ordering the packets to
minimize the diff:
diff --git a/old b/new
index be331bd..253924d 100644
--- a/old
+++ b/new
@@ -52,3 +52,36 @@ Signature Packet, old CTB, 316 bytes
Digest prefix: CDF9
Level: 0 (signature over data)
+Signature Packet, old CTB, 339 bytes
+ Version: 4
+ Type: PositiveCertification
+ Pk algo: RSA
+ Hash algo: SHA512
+ Hashed area:
+ Key flags: CS
+ Symmetric algo preferences: AES256, AES192, AES128, CAST5, TripleDES
+ Hash preferences: SHA1, SHA256, RipeMD
+ Compression preferences: Zlib, BZip2, Zip
+ Features: MDC
+ Keyserver preferences: no modify
+ Issuer Fingerprint: 694CFF26795A29BAE07B4EB585C25E95A16EB94D
+ Signature creation time: 2023-11-09 11:18:41 UTC
+ Key expiration time: P11039DT2036S
+ Unhashed area:
+ Issuer: 85C25E95A16EB94D
+ Digest prefix: 527E
+ Level: 0 (signature over data)
+
+Signature Packet, old CTB, 307 bytes
+ Version: 4
+ Type: GenericCertification
+ Pk algo: RSA
+ Hash algo: SHA256
+ Hashed area:
+ Issuer Fingerprint: AC62EF896DE64C99482FFDF7F0AE9360D9913430
+ Signature creation time: 2018-10-27 06:25:56 UTC
+ Unhashed area:
+ Issuer: F0AE9360D9913430
+ Digest prefix: E4BF
+ Level: 0 (signature over data)
+
Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
[ TL: expand commit message slightly ]
Signed-off-by: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
