| 1 |
On Wed, 09 Apr 2014 18:39:41 +0200 |
| 2 |
Jo <saos@××××××.net> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> I'm a bit concerned about the signing keys of the portage tree |
| 5 |
> releases, I know that gpg is not the same as openssl but keeping in |
| 6 |
> mind that SSH, VPN, HTTPS keys might be compromised for two years, |
| 7 |
> don't you think it's a healthy measure to generate a new pair of keys? |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
It seems highly unlikely that GPG keys got compromised. This could only |
| 10 |
have happened if either private GPG keys were transmitted via an |
| 11 |
OpenSSL encrypted connection, or if the information leak created a |
| 12 |
secondary attack vector. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
SSL certifcates and credentials transmitted via SSL on affected servers |
| 15 |
should be renewed, but other than that, there's not that much to worry |
| 16 |
about as some people think. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Regards, |
| 20 |
Luis Ressel |
Archives