Ah, my apologies. I was looking at the wrong thing. No further comment. On Dec 5, 2007 6:18 PM, Brad Tilley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow, my surprise grows... I shall no longer add to this thread... Bye now. > > http://www.kernel.org/signature.html > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/pgpkeyring.txt > > * One example of a signed Linux Kernel path... there are many others: > ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/patch-2.6.9.sign > > * One example of signed FreeBSD code... there are others: > > http://taosecurity.blogspot.com/2007/11/updating-freebsd-70-beta2-to-70-beta3.html > > Some examples of signed communications from FreeBSD & NetBSD: > http://www.freebsd.org/internal/ssh-keys.asc > http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-announce/2004/02/20/0000.html > > > On Dec 5, 2007 12:59 PM, Kevin Stam < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For one thing, I think you're quite confused. Unless I'm missing > > something, I'm not noticing the FreeBSD, NetBSD, Linux kernel developers > > "signing" their code, or doing anything particularly differently from the > > OpenBSD developers. Please explain. > > > > You've also conveniently ignored bofh's question. Why do you see this as > > being an issue? What risks does PKI mitigate? Did you just vaguely read > > somewhere in an advertisement about the supposed security benefits?
