IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] To bind or not to bind

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Tue, 26 March 2024 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=0815641dda=wk@gnupg.org>
X-Original-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25493C14F6B4 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:23:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.107
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.107 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gnupg.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tC1y9zzZl1P0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ellsberg.gnupg.com (ellsberg.gnupg.com [IPv6:2a01:4f8:151:7306::2]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D51BCC14F6A0 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:23:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnupg.org; s=20181017; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=C40Q8Bm32/UzrYKwQgVXiKqly6pZFG0w2VswZlEuHSs=; b=K9JedC0aMYuHwXyVbB99g3Q4T3 agdaYRMaFgcBmA3KXYnazxA1Wa9GSLmLRSH48XEOzcnES6+hVn7KFeBVHcZ+Uv+QWY+Otl3E6rDt2 RTV+YBqza1GVEA9jIK2jbdszzJyFI5Kppb8oC8I7n7FkL7t4gs+htEVueS9RzENgzRhA=;
Received: from uucp by ellsberg.gnupg.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.94.2 (Devuan)) (envelope-from <wk@gnupg.org>) id 1rp8dn-0002Bf-EU for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:23:07 +0100
Received: from wk by jacob.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.96 (Devuan)) (envelope-from <wk@gnupg.org>) id 1rp8e5-0002To-1y; Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:23:25 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: Bart Butler <bart=2Bietf=40pm.me@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Nickolay Olshevsky <o.nickolay@gmail.com>, openpgp@ietf.org
References: <EGivTgyfjNm_TAvhds1OPA2c0O6LP9lFnkwWHHKLJY8ReJOgtDh3tnYsCSR8yrrBLbpeehtUgIJEhynae8L3daRimNiGO7BAb3cVvC66q-4=@wussler.it> <87a5mqi0xi.fsf@europ.lan> <WKKpi2FW6r9Pftm6kgrVNtXvOXa2U9kz9R0wqlGYuPDl9nRkrcvVM3a2cfviolf1XN83lhPh2KxfzXb2A6d8HeQ4qdKYNd8LlqbtC1cRgCM=@wussler.it> <mUg-9v4FTMUYeDGa3AimMKuJI7Zy5ycxfEpfHN64enr0BP85qK6-Pt3lcgD-VzUfNLBMy2DLha7k_cmP8YXu2c_yMj68sVsPecwOpsiRItA=@wussler.it> <874jcwikie.fsf@europ.lan> <82300a06-fd34-47f5-a3db-26b99d87794e@kuix.de> <4a7b954a-2e84-440f-9f3c-7fd1e4ebd697@gmail.com> <871q7zj35y.fsf@europ.lan> <29000b02-32a7-49df-bd10-511afba772ee@gmail.com> <5R4SO06l_M0vVtwGsq_H9tDnDhVkMzTKTh6Pj7zFCBuVhZQutu5WNmEGU1tqeA4SYMtq_b2baLO0Nq0i5aG0UUnQ9LJ_j5zD4aYyl3Ieb-Y=@pm.me>
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
Jabber-ID: wk@jabber.gnupg.org
Mail-Followup-To: Bart Butler <bart=2Bietf=40pm.me@dmarc.ietf.org>, Nickolay Olshevsky <o.nickolay@gmail.com>, openpgp@ietf.org
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 16:23:25 +0100
In-Reply-To: <5R4SO06l_M0vVtwGsq_H9tDnDhVkMzTKTh6Pj7zFCBuVhZQutu5WNmEGU1tqeA4SYMtq_b2baLO0Nq0i5aG0UUnQ9LJ_j5zD4aYyl3Ieb-Y=@pm.me> (Bart Butler's message of "Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:08:02 +0000")
Message-ID: <877chpggpe.fsf@jacob.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=TRD_Recall_ammunition_Spetznaz_Narcos_TSCM_H.N.P._UFO_PCS_Organized="; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/Y983tMMfb5TQDzKrw9i38vpBgfA>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] To bind or not to bind
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Ongoing discussion of OpenPGP issues." <openpgp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/openpgp/>
List-Post: <mailto:openpgp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp>, <mailto:openpgp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:23:16 -0000

On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:08, Bart Butler said:

> in flexibility. That said, excess flexibility has been in many instances
> OpenPGP's Achilles heel historically.

If you do such a statement you should put it into a context and compare
what you name an Achilles heel with the flexibility and the track record
of failures of other protocols.  In particular to SSL/TLS and - even
more relevant - to CMS.

PGP has shown a lot more of robustness over the last 30 years than the
other protocols.  The fact that it was not committee designed, as CMS
and the crypto-refresh, for sure helped here.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
The pioneers of a warless world are the youth that
refuse military service.             - A. Einstein

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email