Re: [openpgp] Unuploadable Keys

2015-07-22 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor
On Tue 2015-07-21 23:36:45 +0200, ved...@nym.hush.com wrote:
 There could be a workaround, where the key is uploaded to the keyservers,
 but functionally unusable except to individuals whom the key-creator wants to 
 use it:

 [1] Encrypt part of the public key symmetrically, the same way that the 
 private key is symmetrically encrypted.

 [2] Send the passphrase to whomever you want to send the public key, 
 encrypted to their public key.

 [3] Upload the key to keyservers.  It will be usable only by those whom you 
 choose to give the passphrase.

 (* Unless*  you misjudged someone to whom you sent the passphrase, and he 
 turns maliciously on you, and uploads the decrypted form  )

 If such a key-type were implemented, would it need a change in 4880, other 
 than a notice to allow it?

if we were to have a cryptographically-validating keyserver, there's no
way that the certificate could be verified.

I'm not clear what the use case for this is. people who want their
public key to be not-public probably actually care more about:

 * avoiding publication of their User ID, and

 * avoiding publication of a persistent identifier that can link
   communications together

both of these things would probably fail if the key (even obscured) was
published to the public key servers.

I don't see how this proposal solves the identified concern (though it's
possible that i'm misunderstanding the identified concern).

  --dkg

___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


Re: [openpgp] Unuploadable Keys

2015-07-22 Thread MFPA
Hi


On Tuesday 21 July 2015 at 10:36:45 PM, in
mid:20150721213645.979d941...@smtp.hushmail.com, ved...@nym.hush.com
wrote:


 (* Unless*  you misjudged someone to whom you sent the
 passphrase, and he turns maliciously on you, and
 uploads the decrypted form 

It could easily be accidental rather than malicious.

-- 
Best regards

MFPA  mailto:2014-667rhzu3dc-lists-gro...@riseup.net

Coffee doesn't need a menu, it needs a cup.

pgp3RD4dNCShc.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users


Re: [openpgp] Unuploadable Keys

2015-07-21 Thread vedaal
On 7/21/2015 at 5:11 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor d...@fifthhorseman.net wrote:

 Concretely, it should be possible to mark a key as not 
exportable to a
 keyserver or to provide a list of key servers (perhaps described 
using
 regular expressions as per Section 8 of RFC 4880) to which it 
may be
 exported.

   This could be implemented as a new signature subpacket.
.

However, this arrangement (or your signature subpacket proposal) 
has a
set of problems that make it far from ideal protection, especially 
in
the face of potentially adversarial users:

 0) Any existing key (one with a self-sig that does *not* have this
feature set) can't add this feature in a reliable way -- a new
self-sig can just be stripped out of the certificate and the
remaining certificate (with the previous self-sig) will be 
back to
being exportable.

 1) The keyservers would need to respect the value and decline to 
accept
or propagate such keys.  SKS currently doesn't even respect the
non-exportable flag for non-self-sigs
(https://bitbucket.org/skskeyserver/sks-keyserver/pull-
request/20),
let alone verify the cryptographic validity of signatures.

=

There could be a workaround, where the key is uploaded to the keyservers,
but functionally unusable except to individuals whom the key-creator wants to 
use it:

[1] Encrypt part of the public key symmetrically, the same way that the private 
key is symmetrically encrypted.

[2] Send the passphrase to whomever you want to send the public key, encrypted 
to their public key.

[3] Upload the key to keyservers.  It will be usable only by those whom you 
choose to give the passphrase.

(* Unless*  you misjudged someone to whom you sent the passphrase, and he turns 
maliciously on you, and uploads the decrypted form  )


If such a key-type were implemented, would it need a change in 4880, other than 
a notice to allow it?


vedaal


___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users