PGP public key servers are useful! [noise?]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- To: cypherpunks@toad.com Date: Mon Aug 05 16:43:42 1996 Over the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a lot of subscribers who PGP clearsign their messages, but who haven't uploaded their keys to any of the public keyservers. Those keys are most useful when they're available to people who might want to use them, so I'm asking those of you who haven't sent them to a keyserver to do so. (The quick version: paste your key in cleartext into a letter, sent to pgp-public-keys@pgp.mit.edu with the subject: ADD. If you don't have it in cleartext, do pgp -kxa and follow the prompts.) TIA, dave - ---- David E. Smith POB 324 Cape Girardeau MO USA 63702 dsmith@prairienet.org http://www.prairienet.org/~dsmith send mail of 'send pgp-key' subject for my PGP public key "Heard a lot of talk about this Jesus, a man of love, a man of strength; but what a man was two thousand years ago means nothing at all to me today ... " -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 Comment: Automagically signed with Pronto Secure for Windows. iQEVAwUBMgZrGzVTwUKWHSsJAQGRtwf/TPjleUXsqf2GcEsutZNnyYD82bYM2ZT/ NQm0BeUTcNdU+jA/2z5aiy+FRozcL6EeIDPULtCGeMvDYu95vBOjnimIxMjng9J6 mIpFIQzXUN4ZDdE7m1khbn8Vdk/V0kehQL318LzB484SQILWNYvTNrj/cDq6CdKW RMyyOH3+5VH1xRZJjFYvTsKnCszmtZIIvrjOt9+nX/j02bWnZRV7IGbOFjSrCL6p r1TZG/TnU60YGz/TaUhp5OCj0bFlkFQlg+NmcwR9j4rlIza9ujBSuGIcflMRWTG3 ighrCC9cpL1v/qJkHXKy67xdvIZWlq7UiyqTRUEBg7rwjSBca0YgZQ== =rDtm -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
"David E. Smith" <dsmith@prairienet.org> writes:
Over the last couple of weeks, I've noticed a lot of subscribers who PGP clearsign their messages, but who haven't uploaded their keys to any of the public keyservers.
Those keys are most useful when they're available to people who might want to use them, so I'm asking those of you who haven't sent them to a keyserver to do so.
I, for one, make it a point of never using the PGP public key servers. I make my key available by finger, and always check for people's keys through finger. The problem with the PGP public key servers is that one has absolutely no control over what gets uploaded there in one's own name. If someone really wanted to prevent me from using PGP, for example, that person could just upload 500 different PGP keys to the key servers all with my E-mail address as the key ID. Even if you already have a PGP key of someone you trust who has certified my key, are you really going to verify all 500 other keys until you find the one that is certified by the real trusted person? Moreover, what's to stop someone from downloading my key, adding an ID "kkk grand wizard", signing it with a fake "David Duke" key, and uploading the new signature to the PGP servers. I don't want anyone to be able to put such things on my PGP key in the place where most people will go looking for it first. Deleting a key from a PGP key server is probably even more difficult than getting an error corrected on your credit report. Even if one keyserver deletes it, it will probably end up propagating there again from another server. The finger approach is far from perfect, because not everyone can run a finger daemon accessible to the net at large. Moreover, even people with PGP keys in their .plan files often can't be fingered at their mail hubs (in fact, people often receive E-mail at addresses which are only DNS "MX records" which don't have corresponding IP addresses). Thus, I'm not saying finger is the solution. However, at least people have control over the plausible PGP key finger locations in a way that fits sensibly with the key ID's sought. In other words, if I have absolutely no affiliation with Berkeley, I should not be able to stick a PGP key with an ID ending "<..@cs.berkeley.edu>" where people will primarily look for such keys. (Of course I'm welcome put the key any other place I have access to.) Note finally that the key distribution problem addressed by the key servers has nothing to do with key certification. I think one of PGP's greatest strenghts is that anyone can certify any one else's public key. I hate the idea of a hierarchical system where you might have to pay $20 and wait 3 days to get a public key (Verasign I gather does this for SSL certificates, though the cost/wait are probably completely different). Thus, while I'm advocating some kind of hierarchical key distribution mechanism, I absolutely don't want to see that kind of structure imposed on key certification. In fact, the key distribution problem is just the opposite of key certification in that one wants to prevent unwanted certificates and keys from being interpreted as condoned by the supposed owner of the PGP key. Even if my key really was certified by someone a year ago, if I've now forgotten the passphrase I don't want to keep having people grab my old key. I also don't want random attacks on my character appended to my PGP key where most people will seek it. Finally, for those who desire the "light security" of encrypting with my PGP public key even though they can't verify any of the certificates (and I do get plenty of such PGP-encrypted mail), it might be nice to have a system in place that at least required an active network attack to bypass. You might argue that this would be worse as it would encourage more people to use untrusted PGP keys. However, consider SSH's mechanism whereby it acquires public keys automatically at first and then keeps verifying the keys on subsequent sessions. It's not perfect, but I think it definitely improves the security of the situation. Anyway, if the NSA started mounting massive active attacks from the internet backbones, we would at least find out about it soon enough. [Posted anonymously to prevent some wise guy from getting the brilliant idea of uploading 500 fake PGP keys in my name...]
John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
The problem with the PGP public key servers is that one has absolutely no control over what gets uploaded there in one's own name.
Thats why people are supposed to use the web of trust to check the keys. You claim to make your key available by finger. How do you know that Mallet isn't switching the bits as they go down the wire to your correspondants? The only way to verify a key is to check known good signatures on it. Because of this, no security is needed on key storage facilities per se -- you aren't supposed to trust keys without signatures. Geesh. I thought this was obvious. I guess not. Perry
"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
John Anonymous MacDonald writes:
The problem with the PGP public key servers is that one has absolutely no control over what gets uploaded there in one's own name.
Thats why people are supposed to use the web of trust to check the keys. You claim to make your key available by finger. How do you know that Mallet isn't switching the bits as they go down the wire to your correspondants? The only way to verify a key is to check known good signatures on it. Because of this, no security is needed on key storage facilities per se -- you aren't supposed to trust keys without signatures.
Geesh. I thought this was obvious. I guess not.
Perry
The web of trust just certifies that the key belongs to someone. If you'd read to the end of the message, you would have seen that I was not complaining about the key certification process in PGP. At issue is NOT whether a key can be trusted to belong to someone, but whether or not random people should be able to tag others' PGP keys with crap. What I want to prevent is some person I dislike uploading his signature on my key (particularly if he adds another ID to my key and signs that). How would you like it if I added a new ID to your key containing sort of insult, certified that ID, and uploaded the new signature to the key servers. Alternatively, what if I uploaded 5 "vanity" keys in your name to the PGP key servers. Most software would download one key, fail to certify the signature, and therefore not allow someone to communicate with you even if that person could have verified your real key. I don't understand what the purpose of a centralized key server is, when the owner of a public key should be the one to control what certificates and tags are given out with his/her PGP key.
participants (4)
-
Amnesia Anonymous Remailer -
David E. Smith -
John Anonymous MacDonald -
Perry E. Metzger