IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [openpgp] Mining protection in fingerprint schemes

Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse> Mon, 11 April 2016 12:29 UTC

Return-Path: <look@my.amazin.horse>
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 8A83412EDA0 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:29:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 xYkgqB_oOn2L for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:29:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.mugenguild.com (mugenguild.com [5.135.189.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EE9F12EDA2 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 05:29:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (unknown [217.13.173.17]) by mail.mugenguild.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5FD095FC07; Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:29:30 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 14:29:26 +0200
From: Vincent Breitmoser <look@my.amazin.horse>
To: Phillip Hallam-Baker <phill@hallambaker.com>
Message-ID: <20160411122926.GA30342@littlepip.fritz.box>
References: <2AA5B912-0AE6-4722-8BC7-66E37559C0B1@callas.org> <D17B23A3-633F-4E4E-BC14-69ED6060F357@gmail.com> <6E221A61-7AB2-4E0B-B64D-60F210A0131F@callas.org> <E9A5B4B3-0EEC-4E86-8CEC-6680A24BE44F@gmail.com> <0D7A75AB-74C6-40E9-87C5-BA6F05FCDBF7@callas.org> <87oa9jo5sp.fsf@alice.fifthhorseman.net> <9C461E78-DC60-4B9D-A0DF-170F4759A57D@callas.org> <5E793A3D-128D-470A-8DF7-50827F39E02F@gmail.com> <20160410211449.GA12408@littlepip.fritz.box> <CAMm+Lwgqbv4S94M2xYua4gAOWFxr_Kt5y6X8tQEWkaf7weeH+A@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="bp/iNruPH9dso1Pn"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAMm+Lwgqbv4S94M2xYua4gAOWFxr_Kt5y6X8tQEWkaf7weeH+A@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/openpgp/qInmtPA_gX3_JObh7dWc_LPe5mo>
Cc: IETF OpenPGP <openpgp@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Mining protection in fingerprint schemes
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 12:29:35 -0000

Phillip Hallam-Baker(phill@hallambaker.com)@Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:04:20AM -0300:
> The second requires only the ability to compare the fingerprints. Here
> the PGP word scheme shows a more efficient approach, using an alphabet
> of effectively 256 glyphs that are phonetically distinct words.

I'm quite in agreement with most of your thoughts here, however the
actual *representation* of this data (baseN, words, pictures, ...) was
agreed to be out of scope for the standard, if I'm not mistaken.

I do think though that the *length* of this data is a technical detail
that should not be left up to best practices.

 - V

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status