Re: [openpgp] Dealing with clock skew

Claudio Luck <claudio.luck@pep.foundation> Sat, 16 November 2019 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <claudio.luck@pep.foundation>
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 2E56E120073 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 09:40:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.699 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 ykNSe1a1Qfpu for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 09:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dragon.pibit.ch (dragon.pibit.ch [94.231.81.244]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CADB12001A for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 09:40:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dragon.pibit.ch (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ED88171C12C for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:40:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from dragon.pibit.ch ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (dragon.pibit.ch [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 81vrU2TfHWD7 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:40:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [192.168.179.133] (212-51-143-241.fiber7.init7.net [212.51.143.241]) by dragon.pibit.ch (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C89B4171C05E for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:40:17 +0100 (CET)
To: openpgp@ietf.org
References: <87zhgxo0bm.wl-neal@walfield.org>
From: Claudio Luck <claudio.luck@pep.foundation>
Message-ID: <e91c2197-e7f4-b17a-7c6e-81c6e03a3966@pep.foundation>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 18:40:16 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.2.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <87zhgxo0bm.wl-neal@walfield.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="GrjVhzMLAz8xgW4Xsyz0ZXLEMxjGLHWld"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/b88pOfpIw-RJN2aMcjbWlIEuKy8>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Dealing with clock skew
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 16 Nov 2019 17:40:22 -0000

On 15.11.19 12:17, Neal H. Walfield wrote:
> 
> How do other implementations deal with this?  Thoughts?

If we live in an asynchronous messaging world with no global time
concept, then the sender is free to hand out back-dated signatures. The
receiver can't tell the difference between in-transit delay and
back-dating. This can be used on purpose by the sender to induce some
tolerance at the receiver side.

Cheers
Claudio