I recently upgraded my computer and ran into an interesting issue trying to
install TQSL and load my Cert on the new box.  I had, of course, saved my cert
and key as a p12 file so it should have been a piece of cake.  But when I
attempted to load it into TQSL I got an error message about an expired cert. 
Since my cert isn't due to expire until 2/21/2010, this led to some head
scratching.

I decided to import the p12 into Firefox to see what was going on.  What I found
was that, although my cert did indeed have an expiration of 2/21/10, the
Production CA cert that was used to sign it had expired on 9/23/09.  Evidently,
TQSL is validating the entire cert chain on import and, since the Production CA
cert is invalid, it refuses to load anything below it.

This is, arguably, correct behavior.  CAs really shouldn't be signing and
issuing certificates that have a validity period that falls outside their own. 
But knowing that doesn't help me get my cert loaded.  :-)

What I ended up doing was suggested by some earlier posts in this group. 
(Thanks!)  I set my computer clock back to before the Production CA cert had
expired.  That allowed the import to complete successfully, after which I reset
the clock to the actual date.  Fortunately for me, TQSL seems not to care about
validating the Production CA cert after the initial import is done.  That seems
a bit sloppy from a PKI point of view, but it works to my benefit here.

So, bottom line, if you're trying to import what should be a valid p12 file and
you're getting expired cert messages, it might be the intermediate CA cert
that's expired, not your individual cert.  In that case, resetting your computer
clock to a date/time when all the certs in the chain were valid (shortly after
cert creation seems a good bet) should fix the problem.  And don't forget to set
it back afterwards!

On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 22:48, joseph_faber <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

> I decided to import the p12 into Firefox to see what was going on.  What I
found was that, although my cert did indeed have an expiration of 2/21/10, the
Production CA cert that was used to sign it had expired on 9/23/09.  Evidently,
TQSL is validating the entire cert chain on import and, since the Production CA
cert is invalid, it refuses to load anything below it.
>

ARRL has never admitted this, but you're not the first to figure it out.


--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

Thanks for the info Joseph.

This apparently is what happened to me as well, but I just ended up
requesting a new cert from the ARRL. It wasn't that big of a deal
because I got a new one the same day.

73
James


joseph_faber wrote:
> I recently upgraded my computer and ran into an interesting issue trying to
install TQSL and load my Cert on the new box.  I had, of course, saved my cert
and key as a p12 file so it should have been a piece of cake.  But when I
attempted to load it into TQSL I got an error message about an expired cert. 
Since my cert isn't due to expire until 2/21/2010, this led to some head
scratching.
>
> I decided to import the p12 into Firefox to see what was going on.  What I
found was that, although my cert did indeed have an expiration of 2/21/10, the
Production CA cert that was used to sign it had expired on 9/23/09.  Evidently,
TQSL is validating the entire cert chain on import and, since the Production CA
cert is invalid, it refuses to load anything below it.
>
> This is, arguably, correct behavior.  CAs really shouldn't be signing and
issuing certificates that have a validity period that falls outside their own. 
But knowing that doesn't help me get my cert loaded.  :-)
>
> What I ended up doing was suggested by some earlier posts in this group. 
(Thanks!)  I set my computer clock back to before the Production CA cert had
expired.  That allowed the import to complete successfully, after which I reset
the clock to the actual date.  Fortunately for me, TQSL seems not to care about
validating the Production CA cert after the initial import is done.  That seems
a bit sloppy from a PKI point of view, but it works to my benefit here.
>
> So, bottom line, if you're trying to import what should be a valid p12 file
and you're getting expired cert messages, it might be the intermediate CA cert
that's expired, not your individual cert.  In that case, resetting your computer
clock to a date/time when all the certs in the chain were valid (shortly after
cert creation seems a good bet) should fix the problem.  And don't forget to set
it back afterwards!
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--
73

James - KD4ERU

Alexandria, VA
FM18lt

Tom,

The password for your certificate (really for the private key
associated with it) is NOT the same as the password you use to login
to the web site. You specified the password when you first requested
the/a certificate - it was not sent to you in an email. If you can't
remember it, you'll have to start over, by deleting the certificate and
requesting a new one.

      ~Iain / N6ML



On 2010-02-03 20:08, Tom Horton wrote:
>
>
> I just renewed my certificate and loaded it and all just fine.
> Now when i try to convert an ADIF to TQ8 my password ir refused. It is
> the same one I have always used etc.
> I copied it from the e-mail I received and plugged it in and it still
> doesn't accept it.
> I changed the password and it won't accept the new one.
> Ideas? What am I doing wrong?
> Tom K5IID
>
> *"If It Weren't For The United States Military There Would Be NO
> **United States of America** ."*
> September 11, 2001
> We can never, never forget !
> If we aren't free and alive,
> absolutely nothing else matters !
>
>
> Tom Horton K5IID
> Hillsboro, TX
>
>
>

At 11:31 PM 2/3/2010, Iain MacDonnell - N6ML wrote:

>Tom,
>
>The password for your certificate (really for the private key
>associated with it) is NOT the same as the password you use to login
>to the web site. You specified the password when you first requested
>the/a certificate - it was not sent to you in an email. If you can't
>remember it, you'll have to start over, by deleting the certificate and
>requesting a new one.

Iain is right, but before requesting a new cert, make sure to try an
empty password. You may not have specified one for your private key.
73,
          -Rick

If I go to the Triple Play screen to view what States I still need in certain
modes, I notice some of my contacts are not showing up.

For example, it says I still need a contact on Phone on 20m for South Dakota,
yet if I go to the 20m Phone awards page I have a valid contact with a SD
station.

Why would it not show this contact on the Triple Play screen?

Max
VE3TMT

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:13, ve3tmt <ve3tmt@...> wrote:
> If I go to the Triple Play screen to view what States I still need in certain
modes, I notice some of my contacts are not showing up.
>
> For example, it says I still need a contact on Phone on 20m for South Dakota,
yet if I go to the 20m Phone awards page I have a valid contact with a SD
station.
>
> Why would it not show this contact on the Triple Play screen?


TPA QSOs must take place after 2009-01-01 ...  did you note the date
of your 20-m Phone QSO?


--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

Thanks Peter, QSO date was in 2007. Guess it pays to read!!

Max
VE3TMT

--- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, Peter Laws <plaws0@...> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:13, ve3tmt <ve3tmt@...> wrote:
> > If I go to the Triple Play screen to view what States I still need in
certain modes, I notice some of my contacts are not showing up.
> >
> > For example, it says I still need a contact on Phone on 20m for South
Dakota, yet if I go to the 20m Phone awards page I have a valid contact with a
SD station.
> >
> > Why would it not show this contact on the Triple Play screen?
>
>
> TPA QSOs must take place after 2009-01-01 ...  did you note the date
> of your 20-m Phone QSO?
>
>
> --
> Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!
>

On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 10:36, ve3tmt <ve3tmt@...> wrote:
> Thanks Peter, QSO date was in 2007. Guess it pays to read!!


I've heard that, but don't believe it.  :-)



--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

----- Original Message -----

From: Rick Murphy/K1MU

To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com

Cc: Tom Horton

Sent: February 04, 2010 2:40 AM

Subject: Re: [ARRL-LOTW] Password?

 

At 11:31 PM 2/3/2010, Iain MacDonnell - N6ML wrote:

>Tom,
>
>The password for your certificate (really for the private key
>associated with it) is NOT the same as the password you use to login
>to the web site. You specified the password when you first requested
>the/a certificate - it was not sent to you in an email. If you can't
>remember it, you'll have to start over, by deleting the certificate and
>requesting a new one.

Iain is right, but before requesting a new cert, make sure to try an
empty password. You may not have specified one for your private key.
73,
-Rick

Hi,

It seems that all the Swisslog users have a problem to sync with LOTW since this
morning

message : wrong password, wrong username....YES ! they are correct

then

Error connecting with SSL


Same problem with other softwares ?

Guy F6DKQ

I suppose this is old hat to a lot of you, but for this guy who's been at it for
35 years, I was impressed!:

I had Monday off work.  Spent a few hours coding up an LOTW upload routine for
my homebrew logging program.  (I've been manually exporting to ADIF &
using the TQSL app with the GUI to sign the ADIF files)  After a few fits,
especially trying to find a way to send email through an ISP from a Perl
program, got it working.

Today, I worked night shift -- so had a few hours this morning to work some DX.

Came across GW3YRP, heard him asking someone to please QSL for WAS.  Figured he
couldn't possibly need Tennessee, but...  So at 1456z we worked & he
asked that I QSL.

Around 1745z, I decided to trigger the LOTW upload program.  And promptly got a
response from the LOTW server:
2010-02-05 17:45:05 LOTW_QSO: QSO record QSLs a contact
2010-02-05 17:45:05 LOTW_QSO:    QSO: W9WI GW3YRP 2010-02-05 14:56:25Z 20M CW

QSL more than 5,000km away and less than 3 hours.  Not bad!

--

Doug Smith W9WI
Pleasant View, TN  EM66

On Sat, Feb 6, 2010 at 14:20, Tom Horton <k5iid@...> wrote:
>
>
> Am I correct in assuming that I can set up a call in LOTW such as K5IID/QRP so
I can differentiate my QRO/QRP logs and contacts? The problem with that would be
that unless the other station actually logged me as /QRP it wouldn't hit would
it?

Nope.  You can have, or I should say, need, a certificate for each
callsign you operate under.  So if you made contacts as K5IID/QRP and
others logged you that way, you need a certificate for K5IID/QRP.
Fortunately, a certificate request can be generated from within
TrustedQSL and uploaded to HQ.  Turnaround is pretty quick, sometimes
less than 24 hours.

Then you need to sign your QSOs that you made under that call with the
new certificate and upload them.

*Then* you can see which were made as K5IID/QRP.

--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

I need DE for LOTW to complete my WAS CW. However in the past few months I have
contacted a number of DE stations on CW and none of them use LOTW.

Was really hopeful that I could get a DE this weekend as there was supposed to
be a Delaware QSO Party. Never heard a single one or saw one on the cluster. Go
figure.

Not really looking for an answer here, just whining (a lot)...

73
Zack
N8FNR

----- Original Message -----

From: vtnn43e48073

To: ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 6:59 PM

Subject: [ARRL-LOTW] Are there any DE stations that use LOTW?

 

I need DE for LOTW to complete my WAS CW. However in the past few months I have contacted a number of DE stations on CW and none of them use LOTW.

Was really hopeful that I could get a DE this weekend as there was supposed to be a Delaware QSO Party. Never heard a single one or saw one on the cluster. Go figure.

Not really looking for an answer here, just whining (a lot)...

73
Zack
N8FNR

---

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter.
We are a community of 6 million users fighting spam.
SPAMfighter has removed 831 of my spam emails to date.
The Professional version does not have this message.

Hi Zack,

The following LoTW DE stations have been spotted (Cluster or
PSKReporter) in the last 7 days. Number indicates number of spots.
Results taken from here... http://www.hamspots.net/srch.php
>  147 - W3RLO
>  132 - KB3SPX    *
>   71 - WA2VQV    *
>   39 - KB3OJM
>   17 - N3KRX
>   11 - WA3I
>    9 - WA3QHJ    *
>    8 - K3DX      *
>    7 - K3PT
>    4 - WW3DE
>    4 - NY3C      *
>    3 - N8NA
>    2 - K1RY      *
>    1 - N3RSD     *
>
de Laurie, VK3AMA


vtnn43e48073 wrote:
> I need DE for LOTW to complete my WAS CW. However in the past few months I
have contacted a number of DE stations on CW and none of them use LOTW.
>
> Was really hopeful that I could get a DE this weekend as there was supposed to
be a Delaware QSO Party. Never heard a single one or saw one on the cluster. Go
figure.
>
> Not really looking for an answer here, just whining (a lot)...
>
> 73
> Zack
> N8FNR
>

Thanks David! I did not know about tha sched page.

Zack

--- In ARRL-LOTW@yahoogroups.com, David Levine <david_yahoo@...> wrote:
>
> DE is tough even for me in NJ but usually there are one or two on during
> contests. I worked a couple DE's on SSB during their QSO Party. Their QP
> goes on through 2359z tonight (7pm ET).
>
> For my TPA I worked the following station in DE that use LoTW: K1RY & N3ME.
> K1RY was my CW contact and he has an email on QRZ if you want to contact
> him.  Also, try checking http://www.obriensweb.com/sked/ and click the LoTW
> link at the top. See if there are any DE stations active.
>
> Good luck!
> K2DSL - David
>
> On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:59 PM, vtnn43e48073 <vtnn43e@...> wrote:
>
> > I need DE for LOTW to complete my WAS CW. However in the past few months I
> > have contacted a number of DE stations on CW and none of them use LOTW.
> >
> > Was really hopeful that I could get a DE this weekend as there was supposed
> > to be a Delaware QSO Party. Never heard a single one or saw one on the
> > cluster. Go figure.
> >
> > Not really looking for an answer here, just whining (a lot)...
> >
> > 73
> > Zack
> > N8FNR
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Here's something that impressed me, I should call it the 'lack of confirmation'
detection.

What happened?

I had this QSO with C6AKQ (Bob, N4BP):
2010-01-29 00:56:52 C6AKQ 40m CW 599 599 Bahamas CQ:8 ITU:11 ...

I uploaded that QSO entry on LoTW and waited for confirmation. You know that you
can check whether the other amateur radio uploaded his/her entries or not, by
using LoTW's 'Find Call' option on the main page (using this, I also found that
some DX stations declare on QRZ.com that they're using LoTW, when in fact the
system says they did not upload any report ever, ha ha ha).

Since I had an interest on this specific confirmation on 40m CW, I checked
several times on C6AKQ, until I got this message:
'Last upload for C6AKQ: 2010-02-01 13:11:59Z'

See, although C6AKQ uploaded his log past January 29, that QSO is not confirmed,
which means that there's a mistake in our logs (most probably wrong callsign or
time).

Anyway, what impresses me is that I can use LoTW effectively when planning for
my DXCC or other awards. On a side note: I was yo7lcd between 1987 and 1995, and
practically somewhere in between I gave up my personal race to become the
youngest member of YO DX Club, because I couldn't possibly find an explanation
on why I had less than 100 DXCC entities confirmed from over 250 entities
worked. I did everything by the book: SASE, USDs, IRCs, letters (and later
e-mails): there was no way to trace a QSL card's route.

Now: in 84h 15min, I knew exactly that I need to work C6 again for the 40m CW
confirmation (well, unless Bob uploaded only a part of month January, which is
less probable).
The old way: I'd have sent a QSL directly and I'd have known the answer in
several weeks or via the QSL bureau and then maybe one year would have been a
charm.

Good job, LoTW!
Gabriel, ve3mia

While I have noticed LoTW to be fast, there are times when the postal
service is faster. I worked a New Zealand station during one of the RTTY
contests last year I always upload almost immediately to LoTW especially
after a regular QSO it's uploaded to LoTW within 5 mins, as I use HRD
utilities to do it for me. Anyway I uploaded my contest log pretty quick
but it took the New Zealand station a couple of weeks likely do to
having to check a bigger log then what mine was. Now I live in a small
town nearly 500 miles north of Vancouver BC and I had a QSL card in hand
in 4 days. I couldn't believe how efficiently it had arrived. So LoTW...
ya most times it's awesome but sometimes... well it's only as fast as
one of the two parties. In this case I must have had a card that hit
everything perfectly.
73
Ron VA7HZ

--


The box said use Windows XP or better....so I installed Linux





ve3mia wrote:
>
> Here's something that impressed me, I should call it the 'lack of
> confirmation' detection.
>
> What happened?
>
> I had this QSO with C6AKQ (Bob, N4BP):
> 2010-01-29 00:56:52 C6AKQ 40m CW 599 599 Bahamas CQ:8 ITU:11 ...
>
> I uploaded that QSO entry on LoTW and waited for confirmation. You
> know that you can check whether the other amateur radio uploaded
> his/her entries or not, by using LoTW's 'Find Call' option on the main
> page (using this, I also found that some DX stations declare on
> QRZ.com that they're using LoTW, when in fact the system says they did
> not upload any report ever, ha ha ha).
>
> Since I had an interest on this specific confirmation on 40m CW, I
> checked several times on C6AKQ, until I got this message:
> 'Last upload for C6AKQ: 2010-02-01 13:11:59Z'
>
> See, although C6AKQ uploaded his log past January 29, that QSO is not
> confirmed, which means that there's a mistake in our logs (most
> probably wrong callsign or time).
>
> Anyway, what impresses me is that I can use LoTW effectively when
> planning for my DXCC or other awards. On a side note: I was yo7lcd
> between 1987 and 1995, and practically somewhere in between I gave up
> my personal race to become the youngest member of YO DX Club, because
> I couldn't possibly find an explanation on why I had less than 100
> DXCC entities confirmed from over 250 entities worked. I did
> everything by the book: SASE, USDs, IRCs, letters (and later e-mails):
> there was no way to trace a QSL card's route.
>
> Now: in 84h 15min, I knew exactly that I need to work C6 again for the
> 40m CW confirmation (well, unless Bob uploaded only a part of month
> January, which is less probable).
> The old way: I'd have sent a QSL directly and I'd have known the
> answer in several weeks or via the QSL bureau and then maybe one year
> would have been a charm.
>
> Good job, LoTW!
> Gabriel, ve3mia
>
>

I got a new HF rig that has 6M capabilities, so in 6M openings on a few days
last week I made a few dozen contacts - I think my first 6M contacts ever.

Uploaded my logs to LoTW and eQSL, got one QSL on LoTW and 5 on eQSL. Normally,
the ratio is the opposite. Is this just a small sample, or do VHFers tend not to
use LoTW because of no grid square award support?

73, John K3TN

jpescatore wrote:
> I got a new HF rig that has 6M capabilities, so in 6M openings on a few days
last week I made a few dozen contacts - I think my first 6M contacts ever.
>
> Uploaded my logs to LoTW and eQSL, got one QSL on LoTW and 5 on eQSL.
Normally, the ratio is the opposite. Is this just a small sample, or do VHFers
tend not to use LoTW because of no grid square award support?
>
> 73, John K3TN
>
>
>
Hi John,

I am primarily a VHF contest operator.  I have 16,300 QSOs uploaded to
LoTW of which 6,121 were on 6M.

1,196 of them are LoTW verified, including 48 of 50 states,  and 237 of
the 434 grids worked.  I am missing AK and HI.  All worked on SSB on or
above 50.125...    It would help if everyone made sure they are
uploading their correct grid square.

My eQSL numbers are a bit lower,  but similar.

I have never applied for a VUCC and will not until I can do so on LoTW.

FYI   I respond to mailed QSL cards but do not initiate them.  I have
cards from just over 100 of the 6M grid squares worked.

Although these 6M percentages are way below HF  RTTY contest numbers
they are well above those for random HF contacts, at least those made here.

I have noticed a tendency for 6M operators to take longer to upload to
LoTW than some other groups.

That should give you an idea of what to expect.

73,   Jim   W0EEA

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 05:08, jpescatore <jpescatore@...> wrote:

> Uploaded my logs to LoTW and eQSL, got one QSL on LoTW and 5 on eQSL.
Normally, the ratio is the opposite. Is this just a small sample, or do VHFers
tend not to use LoTW because of no grid square award support?

I think folks either use LoTW or they don't and that preferred
band/mode doesn't have a *lot* to do with it.

If you were an exclusive VHFer I can see not bothering because of the
League's inability to support all their awards.  WAS is included, and
there is a 6-m WAS (I'm half-way there on LoTW).  Maybe VHFers that
were ignoring LoTW because it couldn't support VUCC hadn't heard that
WAS had been added?

Of course, folks that participate in RTTY contests tend to upload
frequently for all their contacts ...  So maybe preferred band/mode
does make a difference ...

That said, I've got 25 states confirmed on 6 via LoTW, so they *are*
out there.


--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 08:36, Jim Smith W0EEA <w0eea@...> wrote:

> I am primarily a VHF contest operator.  I have 16,300 QSOs uploaded to
> LoTW of which 6,121 were on 6M.

<...>

> I have noticed a tendency for 6M operators to take longer to upload to
> LoTW than some other groups.


Do VHF+-only folks tend to use a certain logging program?  If they do,
how is its LoTW support.  I like to play on 6 and 2 but I make way
more HF contacts and a lot of those are in contests.  I use DXLab
Suite and that makes it very simple to upload a single contact or 1000
contacts, so I do it routinely.  I've had QSOs made and confirmed in
an hour.

But if ops aren't using a logger with good LoTW support, I can see
where this would be a barrier.



--
Peter Laws | N5UWY | plaws plaws net | Travel by Train!

I'm new to LoTW. I've been trying for several weeks to get Trusted QSL to work
on my system. I'm using Mac OS X 10.6 (Snow Leopard). Everything went smoothly
as far as getting my certificate, but I had trouble saving the p12 certificate
file. Eventually, I managed to get that step completed. However now I am unable
to sign my logs. The TQSL program either hangs or crashes when saving the TQ8
signed file.

Is anyone else using Trusted QSL on a Macintosh platform that has experienced
this issue?

Perry