sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: Remko van der Vossen <wich AT yuugen.jp>
- To: SM-Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2011 08:23:14 +0900
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:46:15PM +0900, flux wrote:
> The problem isn't really about upstream vs. SMGL-local, but rather about
> having a single point of failure. Having multiple locations from which
> to verify the same source (upstream signature plus "local" hash of the
> signature is one example/possibility) improves the system by shielding
> against the single point of failure problem.
Just to be clear, I wasn't talking local vs upstream, I was saying
foregoing a local check for upstream only is a bad idea. I am very much
in favor of using upstream gpg when it is available, but we should also
have a local check in my opinion to ensure that a compromised gpg key
which is outside of our control cannot impact our users.
And yes, naturally, if our grimoire gets compromised we are pretty much
just fscked, but I assumed that went without saying.
Regards, Remko.
P.S. sorry if an empty mail reached you as well, I was still trying to
wake up...
Attachment:
pgp36MOoaKV2Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification
, (continued)
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Sukneet Basuta, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Ismael Luceno, 12/22/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, Thomas Orgis, 12/23/2011
- [SM-Discuss] e-17 section, Robin Cook, 12/27/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] e-17 section, Thomas Orgis, 12/28/2011
- [SM-Discuss] new automake 1.11.2, Robin Cook, 12/28/2011
- Re: [SM-Discuss] GPG verification, David Kowis, 12/22/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.