Nvm, apologies for the spam. I retract my question now after having conferred with a third-party.
I understand now your hypothetical scenario - thanks! Does anyone else have any thoughts on the reduced complexity of juggling multiple (sub?)keys vs the security implications of not separating Authentication/Signing to different (sub?)keys? On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 4:16 PM Christian Chavez <x10a...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Dirk-Willem! > Thanks for your reply - but I'm unfortunately lost as to your (what I > surmise is your implied) hypothetical use-case? > > Ref: > On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 2:56 PM Dirk-Willem van Gulik < > di...@webweaving.org> wrote: > >> Keep in mind that in some workplaces the building of that trust >> explicitly includes the need for counter-intelligence - and hence a >> legitimate use of fake signatures. >> Though I have a hard time imagining a use case in the european private >> sector for that. >> > > Would you mind elaborating on when you'd foresee/imagine such a > non-european/non-private sector have a need for this? > There's nothing that would stop the user in question utilizing multiple > separate "main" keys, and not just separate sub-keys per A, S, E > capability in your scenario (even when A and S capabilities reside on the > _same_ private/public sub-key pair). > > -- > Med vennlig hilsen/Kind regards, > Christian Chavez > Phone/Tlf: +47 922 22 603 > -- Med vennlig hilsen/Kind regards, Christian Chavez Phone/Tlf: +47 922 22 603
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
