| 1 |
On 10/31/2016 09:34 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> The major difference between a developer key and an automated key is |
| 3 |
> that the latter is far easier target. I think we can trust Gentoo |
| 4 |
> developers to at least have their keys encrypted. I suppose most of |
| 5 |
> them don't 'git log -p' the commits their sign but well, it's still |
| 6 |
> harder to target a developer PC than a public server that most likely |
| 7 |
> keeps its signature key unencrypted (or with cleartext password). |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
If you go this route it becomes more complex, as you need the private |
| 10 |
key stored on a smartcard to avoid leakage when secret key is handled |
| 11 |
in-memory (unencrypted properties - so I don't agree with your argument |
| 12 |
that developers store secret key encrypted). This is a lot better due to |
| 13 |
process separation in gnupg 2.1 as a parsing error in gpg doesn't have |
| 14 |
access to keys in gpg-agent as an example, but it is mostly wrong route |
| 15 |
to go on discussion. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
tl;dr; A signature by a release key is valuable |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
-- |
| 20 |
Kristian Fiskerstrand |
| 21 |
OpenPGP keyblock reachable at hkp://pool.sks-keyservers.net |
| 22 |
fpr:94CB AFDD 3034 5109 5618 35AA 0B7F 8B60 E3ED FAE3 |
Archives