[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19583.1318011772@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 14:22:52 -0400
From: Valdis.Kletnieks@...edu
To: Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar@...il.com>
Cc: Krzysztof Halasa <khc@...waw.pl>,
Jon Masters <jonathan@...masters.org>,
Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
"Frank Ch. Eigler" <fche@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: kernel.org status: establishing a PGP web of trust
On Fri, 07 Oct 2011 12:59:30 EDT, Arnaud Lacombe said:
> How so ? The public key BOb has is mathematically tied to the private
> key Alice has. If Bob sends Alice a mail, and then, she send a reply
> signed with her key, which is tied to the mail address used by Bob.
> Then, Bob successfully verifies the signature. This proves Alice has
> control over the key tied and the mail address, don't it ?
As I said - yes, that *DOES* prove control over key and email address.
The point is that signing something random does not prove anything about
control of the *KEY ONLY* that isn't also proved by using the key to sign
another key.
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists