I've started to analyze the trust relations between the keys of various
keysigning parties. The data below is generalization of several keys
signing parties.
the setting:
* more than 20 potential participants
* more than 15 attendees
* 1-3 keys that signed every single key of all announced partici
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> I've started to analyze the trust relations between the keys of various
> keysigning parties. The data below is generalization of several keys
> signing parties.
>
> the setting:
> * more than 20 potential participants
> * mor
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 04:39:40PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:15:16PM +0300, Pawel Shajdo wrote:
> >
> >>Salve!
> >>Can somebody explain me what is "back signatures"?
> >>Manual not very clear about this.
> >
> >
> > It's a countermeasure against an a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 04:32:07PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
>
>>David Shaw wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:47:08PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
>>>
>>>
David Shaw wrote:
>I should add that this is a new feature for 1.4.3.
>>
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 04:32:07PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 01:47:08PM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> >
> >>David Shaw wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 02:24:09PM -0500, David Shaw wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 10:15:16PM +0300, Pawel
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:04:27AM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> > It's as official as any release that hasn't happened yet: that is to
> > say, we're happy and thrilled if you test it out and report bugs (to
> > gnupg-devel), but you'll have to compile it from the SVN repository,
> > and it's not consid
On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:30:46PM +0100, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> 4) The owners are bad signers and didn't take part in the ID
> verification step of the signature process.
>
>
> 1) and 3) are defiantly not the reasons in the analyzed cases.
>
> I really hope 2) is the cause, but in at least one
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:30:46PM +0100, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
>
>
>>How should 4) be dealt with?
>>
>>As far as I am aware the is no negative signature or any other way to
>>mark those keys - except for local trust settings.
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Shaw wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 12:04:27AM +1030, Alphax wrote:
>
>
>>>It's as official as any release that hasn't happened yet: that is to
>>>say, we're happy and thrilled if you test it out and report bugs (to
>>>gnupg-devel), but you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
David Shaw wrote:
> It's as official as any release that hasn't happened yet: that is to
> say, we're happy and thrilled if you test it out and report bugs (to
> gnupg-devel), but you'll have to compile it from the SVN repository,
> and it's not con
G'day David,
* David Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [051105 07:45]:
>
> It's as official as any release that hasn't happened yet: that is to
> say, we're happy and thrilled if you test it out and report bugs (to
> gnupg-devel), but you'll have to compile it from the SVN repository,
> and it's not consi
--- David Shaw wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 04:59:01PM +, Nicholas
> Cole wrote:
> > Am I right that there is no easy way to create an
> > expiring UIUIDas opposed to an expiring key).
> >
> > --ask-cert-expire seems to be ignored when using
> > adadduidn the edit menu.
> >
> > Is there
On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:09:36AM +1030, Alphax wrote:
> David Shaw wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 12:30:46PM +0100, Thomas Kuehne wrote:
> >
>
> >
> >>How should 4) be dealt with?
> >>
> >>As far as I am aware the is no negative signature or any other way to
> >>mark those keys - except fo
* Jean-David Beyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I put the speculations aside and stick with the fact that the NSA
> > recommends ECC for government use. That's enough for _me_.
> >
> I guess it depends on how your paranoia works, and about whom you
> choose to be paranoid. Does the NSA recomme
Stewart V. Wright wrote:
> Can someone then please update the information on the web pages to be
> relevant to SVN as opposed to CVS (I'm assuming that you're not
> running both concurrently).
The cvs servers are still operational, just no longer updated.
README.WARNING-REPOSITORY-NOT-CURRENT say
15 matches
Mail list logo
