X-PGP Key ID: 4AAF00E5 X-PGP Fprint: 30D81F3484E6A83F 6EC8D7F0CAB3D265 Date: Thu, 15 Dec 1994 06:55:23 -0800 To: cypherpunks@toad.com From: ddt@lsd.com (Dave Del Torto) Subject: KEYSRVR: tabula rasa? Cc: Philip Zimmermann <prz@acm.org>, Michael Graff <explorer@iastate.edu> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- [parts from a separate thread w/ Derek] Why is it possible for someone other than ME to add MY key to a keyserver? I realize that at some point (perhaps only the first time you submit a key?), there has to be some trust model employed, but it seems like this anyone-can-submit-anyone-else's-key situation offers a very obvious attack: anyone could propagate bogus keys across the net by just generating bogus keys with someone else's email/name on them, leading to massive impersonation problems. Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems like there should be a more rigorous method available to, and employed by, keyserver operators for verifying someone's identity before accepting a key submitted (supposedly) by them. Shouldn't the key submission msg itself at minimum be required to be contained within a signed msg from someone with enough "nearness" in trust levels from some trusted introducer known to the keyserver op? I thought this sort of situation was precisely the reason for the trust level system in PGP in the first place. This may be a can of worms (or not), but if cpunks require fairly decent methods for verifying the identities of people who want to trade keys with them personally, then it seems keyservers should require at LEAST that level of verification (or better). I'd like to CLEAR/REMOVE ALL keys from ALL keyservers that are: - attributed to me by others (without my knowledge) - added by others (unknown to me) - purporting to have been generated by me) and start with a tabula rasa. Maybe in a few weeks, once all these (what I consider to be) bogus keys are GONE, I can add my actual key to a keyserver. There doesn't seem to be any elegant mechanism available for doing this yet, but I'm ready to be educated on this point. Any comments? dave -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6 iQCVAgUBLvANraHBOF9KrwDlAQGVDwQAs4/OuwICvnl+hHpatlcpp8o7MrF21x9f 4SJd0NUJ/koa648bDwr0qxyhs7NSwon2jU4FPI/QBPVAcrsSAMkfXWr2NpF6pOlV TIFIQ9xouT9RP7KT86bU0EiU3RQsO3q8LJRjylWOA2zBEYC+b7Ah5ALfZ/tng293 wE8W2E/rxl0= =64dw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Why is it possible for someone other than ME to add MY key to a keyserver? I realize that at some point (perhaps only the first time you submit a key?), there has to be some trust model employed, but it seems like this anyone-can-submit-anyone-else's-key situation offers a very obvious attack: anyone could propagate bogus keys across the net by just generating bogus keys with someone else's email/name on them, leading to massive impersonation problems.
This has always been there. Many people consider it a feature. I like having the ability to tell a friend, who just signed my key, to just upload it to the keyserver, since the signature tends to do much more good being on the keyserver than being on my keyring. Also, because the keyserver uses PGP as a back end, it is possible to send multiple keys in a single message. You cannot do batch-processed incremental adds using PGP; if a keyfile contains multiple keys, there is no way to have a program only add specific additions. What about people who don't have email, or pseudonyms, or keys without email addresses? How do you deal with those, if you have to add your own key. And what about forged mail; I can easily send an email message claiming to be you. So what if I need to sign it? If I was creating a new key to spoof you, I _could_ sign it, and forge mail, and it would be added. So what? What does this buy you? Absolutely nothing!
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems like there should be a more rigorous method available to, and employed by, keyserver operators for verifying someone's identity before accepting a key submitted (supposedly) by them. Shouldn't the key submission msg itself at minimum be required to be contained within a signed msg from someone with enough "nearness" in trust levels from some trusted introducer known to the keyserver op? I thought this sort of situation was precisely the reason for the trust level system in PGP in the first place.
You are definitely missing something obvious! I will absolutely not do what you suggest here; I refuse. If you want rigorous key verifications then move into a PEM strict hierarchy (which I will perfectly well admit has its uses) or patronize the SLED database people, who will do what you want. What I want to provide with my keyserver is an easy way for anyone to distribute a PGP key easily. I don't care who you are, what you believe in, or what you want to accomplish, but if you want to let people have your PGP key, I want it on my server so others can get it. I think that many of the other keyserver operators believe as I do -- the role of a keyserver is key distribution, not key verification. Key verification is done very will in PGP itself. The method is called SIGNING A KEY. If you want to verify a key, check the signatures on it. This is exactly what the web of trust is about. If you trust me to sign keys, then you will trust the keys I've signed. If you don't trust me, then my signatures mean nothing. But you should never trust a key from the keyserver just because you obtained it from a keyserver. That's just plain stupid.
This may be a can of worms (or not), but if cpunks require fairly decent methods for verifying the identities of people who want to trade keys with them personally, then it seems keyservers should require at LEAST that level of verification (or better).
Again: ABSOLUTELY NOT! Keyservers are open to everyone; all comers welcome. Everyone from "Pr0duct Cypher" to "BlackNet" to "Jeffrey I. Schiller <jis@mit.edu>" is welcome to put their key on the keyservers. Again, there is a very big difference (which you clearly do not comprehend) between key distribution and key verification. The keyservers ONLY do the former, and you should do the latter. Doing otherwise is, as I said, stupid.
There doesn't seem to be any elegant mechanism available for doing this yet, but I'm ready to be educated on this point. Any comments?
Just add your new key to the keyservers and have people start using it. Life goes on. You are not the first to be in this situation, and you definitely will not be the last. I hope I've given you some insight. -derek Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, G MIT Media Laboratory Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB) Home page: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/warlord/home_page.html warlord@MIT.EDU PP-ASEL N1NWH PGP key available
Why is it possible for someone other than ME to add MY key to a keyserver? I realize that at some point (perhaps only the first time you submit a key?), there has to be some trust model employed, but it seems like this anyone-can-submit-anyone-else's-key situation offers a very obvious attack: anyone could propagate bogus keys across the net by just generating bogus keys with someone else's email/name on them, leading to massive impersonation problems.
Yes, there are such possibilitied.
Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but it seems like there should be a more rigorous method available to, and employed by, keyserver operators for verifying someone's identity before accepting a key submitted (supposedly) by them. Shouldn't the key submission msg itself at minimum be required to be contained within a signed msg from someone with enough "nearness" in trust levels from some trusted introducer known to the keyserver op? I thought this sort of situation was precisely the reason for the trust level system in PGP in the first place.
This may be a can of worms (or not), but if cpunks require fairly decent methods for verifying the identities of people who want to trade keys with them personally, then it seems keyservers should require at LEAST that level of verification (or better).
Sure. Are you offering to do the coding?
I'd like to CLEAR/REMOVE ALL keys from ALL keyservers that are: - attributed to me by others (without my knowledge) - added by others (unknown to me) - purporting to have been generated by me) and start with a tabula rasa. Maybe in a few weeks, once all these (what I consider to be) bogus keys are GONE, I can add my actual key to a keyserver.
Until someone writes code to deal with owner-submission (or whatever) you're SOL. Even if all the operators were to delete all of your keys, someone would eventually mail their entire ring to a server, and those bogus keys would be back up again. You mentioned that you didn't keep your secret key for one of your now-defunct keys. Why not? Are the servers supposed to clean up after you now too?
There doesn't seem to be any elegant mechanism available for doing this yet, but I'm ready to be educated on this point. Any comments?
Do you know how to code in Perl? Code submissions welcome. --Michael -- Michael Graff Iowa State University Computation Center Project Vincent 215 Durham voice: (515) 294-4994 explorer@iastate.edu Ames, IA 50011 fax: (515) 294-1717 gg.mlg@isumvs.bitnet
participants (3)
-
ddt@lsd.com -
Derek Atkins -
Michael Graff