Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints and their collisions resistance

Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org> Sat, 05 January 2013 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <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 DD67821F8506 for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:07:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pYvBIzjox0tL for <openpgp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:07:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kerckhoffs.g10code.com (kerckhoffs.g10code.com [217.69.77.222]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2594721F8510 for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sat, 5 Jan 2013 15:07:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uucp by kerckhoffs.g10code.com with local-rmail (Exim 4.72 #1 (Debian)) id 1Trcpk-00005m-0o for <openpgp@ietf.org>; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:07:20 +0100
Received: from wk by vigenere.g10code.de with local (Exim 4.77 #3 (Debian)) id 1Trcmz-00049g-Lg; Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:04:29 +0100
From: Werner Koch <wk@gnupg.org>
To: ianG <iang@iang.org>
References: <50E530D6.6020609@brainhub.org> <50E5494E.6090905@iang.org> <50E60748.3040103@brainhub.org> <50E60F7A.8000001@fifthhorseman.net> <50E61BF7.4020905@brainhub.org> <50E88141.1030907@iang.org>
Organisation: g10 Code GmbH
X-message-flag: Mails containing HTML will not be read! Please send only plain text.
OpenPGP: id=1E42B367; url=finger:wk@g10code.com
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 00:04:29 +0100
In-Reply-To: <50E88141.1030907@iang.org> (iang@iang.org's message of "Sat, 05 Jan 2013 22:38:41 +0300")
Message-ID: <87vcbb9qpu.fsf@vigenere.g10code.de>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: openpgp@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [openpgp] Fingerprints and their collisions resistance
X-BeenThere: openpgp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Jan 2013 23:07:22 -0000

On Sat,  5 Jan 2013 20:38, iang@iang.org said:

> Fingerprints aren't really for the wire, and if you use them for the
> wire, you're exercising your right to develop your own security model
> and threat model.  For my money - don't do that.

The fingerprint is used for an revocation key (5.2.3.15).  However, your
policy may simply disallow the use of a revocation key if this is a
threat to you.


Shalom-Salam,

   Werner

-- 
Die Gedanken sind frei.  Ausnahmen regelt ein Bundesgesetz.