Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: A new look at PGP (WAS: Re: OpenPGP (GnuPG) vs. S/MIME)

From: Roy M. Silvernail (roy_at_rant-central.com)
Date: 02/28/04

  • Next message: Dave Sherohman: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Knocking Microsoft" 
    To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2004 11:32:31 -0500

    On Sat, 2004-02-28 at 01:21, gadgeteer@elegantinnovations.org wrote:
    > On Fri, Feb 27, 2004 at 11:13:38PM -0600, Troy Solo (solo@dok.org) wrote:
    > > In my opinion, it would be too easy to create false "Webs of Trust"
    > > through something like Orkut. I personally have people on my friends
    > > list that I've never actually met in person.
    >
    > Those that know or learn this trait about you will then give you a very
    > low value of trust for the computation of their web-of-trust matrix. This
    > was a major consideration in designing the way web-of-trust works.

    At the risk of channeling Detweiler, both of you misunderstand the
    concept of nymity, though for diferent reasons. PGP's web of trust does
    not imply is-a-person credentials, nor should it. We're talking about a
    communications medium that doesn't require such credentials. A medium
    that is, by nature (if not by design) anonymous. The only concept of
    identity present is some ASCII test appearing before the first blank
    line of a message.

    Chances are that I'm not replying to a person with the given name of
    "Gadgeteer". That has nothing to do with whether I trust your
    communications, or to what level. Some years ago, a nym called Pr0duct
    Cypher produced Magic Money, one of the first e-cash schemes. The code
    was solid, well written and never associated with the meatspace identity
    of its author. Nonetheless, the Pr0duct Cypher nym gained reputation
    capital because of its acts and words.

    There are nyms on this very list whose output is granted creedence (or
    "trust", if you will) without a meatspace association. There are those
    that are ignored, as well, and all without PGP signatures, X.509
    certificates or faxed copies of identity papers. Extending trust to such
    a nym is not a bad act. The web of trust never required a meatspace
    association for exactly this reason. A WOT connection says only "I
    trust that this nym is who it says it is". Your reasons and
    requirements for extending trust are your own. The web of trust
    facilitates the communication of the relationship; it does not define
    the relatonship itself.

    > As has already been pointed out in this thread (and others before it)
    > all current implementations have too great a friction for widespread
    > acceptance, use, or understanding. End of story.

    Beginning of opportunity. 

    -- 
Roy M. Silvernail is roy@rant-central.com, and you're not
Never Forget:  It's Only 1's and 0's!
SpamAssassin->procmail->/dev/null->bliss
http://www.rant-central.com
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
  • Next message: Dave Sherohman: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Knocking Microsoft"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Trust Validation
      ... If you have secondary dns servers of each others forest in your dns server ... range for RPC then you won't be able to get communications through. ... Our trust is setup on a P2P. ... If you would like to validate connectivity between the PDCe's use the ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
    • Re: New Method for Authenticated Public Key Exchange without Digital Certificates
      ... > aprties can have their machines trust the other's machines. ... to belong to one firm actually belongs to that firm? ... > specific transaciton, and future possible sales transactions, not what their ... communications alone without digital signatures be involved ...
      (sci.crypt)
    • Trust Relationship has broken
      ... At first the trust worked fine. ... That fixed our login problem. ... saying that it can't find the domain controller in my old network. ... Is at least some of the communications ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.active_directory)
    • Trust Relationship has broken
      ... At first the trust worked fine. ... That fixed our login problem. ... saying that it can't find the domain controller in my old network. ... Is at least some of the communications ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.general)
    • Trust Relationship has broken
      ... At first the trust worked fine. ... That fixed our login problem. ... saying that it can't find the domain controller in my old network. ... Is at least some of the communications ...
      (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)