On Saturday 07 November 2015 17:31:38 MFPA wrote: > On Saturday 7 November 2015 at 12:30:53 PM, in > <mid:563deefd.7080...@dabpunkt.eu>, Daniel Baur wrote: > > I don’t really understand what is the earn here. > > > > If I send a encrypted message to you and EvilPerson > > (together in the same eMail), you receive the email and > > gpg would warn you “Heh, you don’t trust EvilPerson!”: > > What would improve? The EvilPerson received already the > > email, neither you or I could do anything about that. > > Having it flagged up to me that "EvilPerson" can also read the message > may cause me to act differently in response to the message contents, > or to act differently in future dealings with the sender.
As vedaal explained, anybody between the sender and you can add arbitrary fake ESK packets to the message, e.g. a packet for EvilPerson's key. So, the attacker could make you think that EvilPerson could also read the message even though EvilPerson can't. Lacking EvilPerson's private key you have no way of telling whether the ESK packet is genuine or fake. Consequently, drawing conclusions solely from the presence (or absence) of other ESK packets seems like a bad idea. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
