WoT question - policy
dirk.gottschalk1980 at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 15 20:15:21 CET 2018
Am Dienstag, den 13.11.2018, 22:36 +0100 schrieb Stefan Claas:
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2018 21:39:18 +0100, Wiktor Kwapisiewicz wrote:
> > On 13.11.2018 17:54, Stefan Claas wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > i thought about creating a key certification policy, for my key,
> > > and like to know your opinions.
> > > <https://stefan_claas.keybase.pub/policy.txt>
> > > I have read in the past several policies, but i like to avoid
> > > id-card / online video/chat etc. because i am not able
> > > to distinguish between a real or a fake id, when doing so.
> > > Therefore i thought to use a postcard/letter method.
> > > Any critics are very welcome!
> > Sounds interesting, would the post office check the ID of the
> > person
> > claiming the letter?
> Well, i assume that the good old postman, delivering mail to your
> house, is still around... :-) If i would send as some form of a
> registered letter than i would say yes.
Oh yes, wait a minite, mistper postman. *sing*
> > It reminds me of someone's method that utilized small bank
> > transfers (I can't find the source though :( ).
> I also thought about PayPal etc., but decided against it after
> receiving an advice.
> > Why not issue generic certifications instead of sig2 and sig3?
> > There
> > are some arguments against them:
> > https://debian-administration.org/users/dkg/weblog/98
> Yes, i remember this blog post and thought about this as well.
> I like to point out that i remember RSA encryption, before PGP was
> available and there was no WoT, so only people who knew each other
> communicated that way.
RSA is not restricted to communication. It's primary intention was, and
is, encryption of any type of data.
> When i first learned about PGP in 94/95 i also thought why should
> people sign each other's key for a WoT and why do we need a global
> WoT and what is it good for.
This should be obvious.
> With my humble approach i like to be honest, in that form, that i did
> my best for certifying someones key which might be useful for someone
> else, entering the WoT, without letting third parties know that i
> know a person personally, or have a longtime online friendship etc.
> or that i belong to a certain group of people.
With differing signature levels you surely do let people know that kind
of data. There are even small tools available, which produces a diagram
of relations between people/keys from their signatures, including the
signature level data. This can be done via recursively fetching the
keys from a key server.
Using just sig0 reduces the usability of the data because you can not
differ the strength of the relation, at least.
> With the postal approach the requester does not need to send his
> address in encrypted form in case my computer would be compromised.
> When someone request a signature i don't keep records on my computer
> later. I only keep the postcard as souvenir.
A compromised computer is not the real deal at all in this question.
> With the sig0 approach i have the following problem: I could create
> a couple of fake keybase accounts, for example, give each other
> a sig0 and then what is this good for if i follow the advise from
> the blog and what trust should a third party gain from this many sig0
> on such a key?
You can sign sig0 without havin any trouble of this kind. That's the
reason why we have the trustdb since GnuPG 2.?. It depends on the
internal set trust and gpg computes the calculated trust level for the
key in question.
I do use singanture levels as well, but I am thinking about this
practice for a while now. Even giving a sig3 changes nothing, if I
assigned just a marginal in the trustdb. The Chain is relevant, not the
level you assigned.
52064 Aachen, Germany
GPG: DDCB AF8E 0132 AA54 20AB B864 4081 0B18 1ED8 E838
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the Gnupg-users