Re: PGP security models, was Summary of IETF LC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey

Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com> Thu, 24 September 2015 14:05 UTC

Return-Path: <hallam@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5AFE1AD34D for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.277
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.277 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pkjImYMmSnwo for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E11A21AD0BA for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lacao8 with SMTP id ao8so64777840lac.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=3CdNIY3qYUFZjfsxL+6lwNmirjnaey7XRECSrdAHXPk=; b=EoRjz6HeIWtu+Injuh0UyAMFQntvfrEJYg3y9Db7CeQjdsuUMTdFx2MBDIN+s+9PL0 qJcZG6/RqHr4gkoyn3yxtWU4ATGvMtvTKOQ9vzu114MycGkwYHVJf/q3tJ/ylcisP9Jl 8SIqoQWh/llI6FQTojn3wm03az8LRm85op2/b28T772Bb8v3VdmcRlJ1Xui41yMBc4T6 lJbUgsKSajuoO5FuXnFy678Yrh0DrLYUq+cT0zlgeDg7RrLFgOJTJJe1312QN1hZg6DV 21kSPc0uXEU4+xCktO26tI7TF6wIDdbveQpW07Loujdbx5bwJ7es9sCeQVorjaG8L/Kc o7Og==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.28.195 with SMTP id d3mr374617lah.79.1443103531580; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:31 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: hallam@gmail.com
Received: by 10.112.2.163 with HTTP; Thu, 24 Sep 2015 07:05:30 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <5603E66E.1060907@gmail.com>
References: <20150923153523.7990.qmail@ary.lan> <tslbnctgm4x.fsf@mit.edu> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1509231336100.14529@ary.lan> <tsltwqlf0ph.fsf@mit.edu> <alpine.OSX.2.11.1509231446360.14529@ary.lan> <alpine.LSU.2.00.1509241006350.7380@hermes-2.csi.cam.ac.uk> <87mvwcoxfw.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <CAMm+LwgoB1vB4-QqAHQk09vHFvus79xM=0zgxqEoFu0ZsS9Qbg@mail.gmail.com> <5603E66E.1060907@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:05:30 -0400
X-Google-Sender-Auth: JsahLLVZmZRjqDG726yrW1Qkqhs
Message-ID: <CAMm+Lwiuxa7K4M1mgvK6No=2+b83gPc=R1Er52HgsoH=S-GPXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: PGP security models, was Summary of IETF LC for draft-ietf-dane-openpgpkey
From: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
To: robert <robert.w.withers@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0160b65a5fc1f405207eb920"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/gh-1_NKsxSbI3nhNzCV587xfMl8>
Cc: IETF Discussion Mailing List <ietf@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 14:05:59 -0000

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 8:02 AM, robert <robert.w.withers@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've sort of been following this discussion, not being too familiar with
> thinking about PGP. I did an S/MIME impl awhile back.
>
> I would like to propose adding 2 features:
> a. add a registry family that is self-signed and the members form a quorum
> for election and the family cert is distributed across many registries and
> there is eventual consistency.
> b. use a blockchain to make eventually consistent and authenticate the
> quorum of members of a self-signed family cert, published to global
> registry.
>
> I think you blockchain the self-signed, globally published family cert
> which contains quorum approval of additions and revocations of certs
> produced by this self-signed family cert with CA ability. I think that's
> secure without 3rd party CA/RevokeCertList (if IIIRC it's name).
>
> Do you think my proposal has merit?
>

Take a look at this, it gives a mathematical framework for that sort of
approach:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-hallambaker-prismproof-trust-01


The Meta Mathematical Mesh is intended to work in that way. Just finishing
some code and producing initial specs.