At Fri, 23 Jun 2017 02:07:19 +0100, MFPA wrote: > On Wednesday 21 June 2017 at 7:49:42 PM, in > <mid:ffb9b23c-b01b-44d0-3a75-6e5e474de...@digitalbrains.com>, Peter > Lebbing wrote:- > > > I think it's a bad UX choice to > > name an invalid > > signature "UNTRUSTED Good" and a valid signature > > "Good". I think it > > suggests they both have some credibility, which is a > > false suggestion. > > I thought "good signature" just meant the message has not been > altered in transit.
Nope. A MitM could have intercepted the message and replaced the body with some other signed text (text that it possibly signed with a "fake" key). HTH, :) Neal _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
