Gentoo Archives: gentoo-project

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-project@l.g.o
Cc: phajdan.jr@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-project] let's stop using short gpg key ids, that's insecure
Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:21:09
Message-Id: 20120105192155.077e8851@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-project] let's stop using short gpg key ids, that's insecure by "Paweł Hajdan
1 On Thu, 05 Jan 2012 18:57:35 +0100
2 ""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@g.o> wrote:
3
4 > On 1/2/12 6:17 PM, Michał Górny wrote:
5 > > Insecure to what?
6 >
7 > It's easy to confuse keys that way. I'm not saying that it results in
8 > an immediate compromise or that it's urgent, but if we can make it
9 > harder to confuse keys, why not do that?
10
11 I don't say that we should or shouldn't do that. I just say that we
12 shouldn't say it will improve any kind of 'security'.
13
14 > > The trust model of PGP is not based on key
15 > > IDs. The short IDs are only used to let users grab our keys at will;
16 > > and as the blog post shows, GPG handles repeating key IDs just fine.
17 >
18 > Do all developer keys have at least one signature of some other key?
19 > In the absence of signatures (and how does the user verify that those
20 > have been made by developers?), what users have is our list of short
21 > key IDs.
22
23 And how can they verify that list? I don't think there's a reason to
24 trust it, and I don't think most of us care about it at all.
25
26 --
27 Best regards,
28 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature