Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

ok, just to clarify; my original question boils down to be able to generate Sign key using a subkey. I guess there should be an arbitrary hard limit on the number of sub-subkey, Aside from this, the validation algorithm should be made recursive, up to the hard limit. Would be possible to use

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> While I have nothing against (rapid) prototyping in general, it is not > the advisable method for each and every project or person. Enthusiastically agreed. > This, of course, should best be discussed elsewhere. ;-) This, as well. :) ___

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 15.09.2017 10:52, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > Often, the best way to begin learning how to do something is to go out > and do it. While I have nothing against (rapid) prototyping in general, it is not the advisable method for each and every project or person. I prefer spending time designing

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

I understand what you say, but for now I'm still thinking if use a certificate for lvl1 or a key.. For sure in the next days I want to produce a basic schematic of the system, protocol, expected workflow.. I already attempted something but so far I always changed idea halfway thought. On Fri, Sep

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>> now's the time to go off and start committing code. > > hope you are kidding.. I'm not even finished to collect all the > information and ideas, then i need to crunch them up, come out with a > protocol schema, check with whatever is interested if sound.. Nope. Not kidding. The first

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>You've already heard a lot of good advice from people here I got a couple of ideas, but so far the only real information is that I cant do with actual system in place. And one nice idea from a guy to use level of thrust already implemented, but i'm not sure if i understand all of its possible

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> But even if you don't agree with my "vision", lets keep it technical; > what would be the best way to implement this system in your opinion? Create a GitHub repo and start committing code. What you want to do is not something that's within the scope of the OpenPGP RFC. It's close, but it's

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> Just because they don't expose the dials and switches to you doesn't mean > they don't exist. my goal instead is became as invisible as possible for the end user.he should forget about my app running in the background, of course a password sometimes when he add a new service, but that is all.

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 10/09/17 17:23, lesto fante wrote: > Now, I have been pointed out that the sanity card in EU (for non EU; > all EU has the same sanity card.. So you can travel and not have to > worry) come with a certificate inside! On 14/09/17 00:20, lesto fante wrote: > I also hope the same apply on the

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>> Your "average internet user" is a 1940s-style way of thinking. We need to do >> better than that. > > Then explain FB, google, youtube, amazon... all of them does NOT > provide a great deal of personalization, if at all. They all provide intensely personalized experiences. Just because they

Re: Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>Until and unless you present a usability study involving 100+ people composing >a representative sample of an identifiable community, you don't know a thing. * I think * is NOT * I know *. I may be wrong: I don't care. First of all i want to implement this for myself, and if i'm right and is

Re: Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>Such a thing already exists, at least here in Italy: CIE/CNS. X509-based certs. exactly, this is what started the idea; we have no power over those certificate for revoke, and i have no idea if a new certificate is issued if you loose your document. What I found out is that the CA seems to be

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

Il 12/09/2017 19:39, lesto fante ha scritto: > i think my user-case if one of the most common, especially if we want > to create something like a state-provided identity (on you > smartacard-document), that want want to make easily usable on everyday > services (remeber, all services is really

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> i think my user-case if one of the most common, especially if we want > to create something like a state-provided identity... Until and unless you present a usability study involving 100+ people composing a representative sample of an identifiable community, you don't know a thing. Over the

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> I understand that you're trying to make *your* life easier. i think my user-case if one of the most common, especially if we want to create something like a state-provided identity (on you smartacard-document), that want want to make easily usable on everyday services (remeber, all services is

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On Sun 2017-09-10 21:17:33 +0200, lesto fante wrote: > here i want to AUTOMATE, make this thing MORE EASY to use than a > common password approach. I understand that you're trying to make *your* life easier. But the choices you make also have an impact on the people who look at your public keys.

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>(you forgot to Cc: the list, I'm Cc-ing back as it doesn't seem voluntary to me) yes i did with all of my email. I *should* have reply to all by default, but seems not the case. >I still don't get why you would want amazon and your bank to see the same identity key Mainly to be able to replace

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>And to be more precise, in the situation where the level-2 key is compromised, >you actually do not revoke the level-2 key itself (using the corresponding >level-2 private key), you revoke the trust signature on the level-2 key (using >the level-1 private key). The level-2 will then cease to

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 09/10/2017 11:32 PM, lesto fante wrote: just to be sure I don't misunderstand, the level 2 key cannot revoke the level 1 key, right? No it cannot. And to be more precise, in the situation where the level-2 key is compromised, you actually do not revoke the level-2 key itself (using the

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

(THIS IS THE FULL MAIL I FORGOT TO CC, for future reference) >This is the terminology that would be used under your proposal, do I understand correctly? yes, we can change it, but i think this is pretty understandable. >What I called C subkeys is based on the terminology for the three major

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>You revoke the level-2 key, that will be enough to invalidate the signature on >the level-3 key. >I merely pointed out what is already feasible with the current state of the >OpenPGP specification and the GnuPG implementation. you are right, after all if it is there, it can be automated. The

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

>If your level-3 key is compromised, you revoke it, generate a new one and sign >it with the level-2 key. The new level-3 key will be automatically valid for >your correspondents. what if i lose the level-2 key too? imagine level-2 and level-3 key are both on my phone, with NO other copy of the

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 09/10/2017 09:17 PM, lesto fante wrote: If your level-3 key is compromised, you revoke it, generate a new one and sign it with the level-2 key. The new level-3 key will be automatically valid for your correspondents. what if i lose the level-2 key too? imagine level-2 and level-3 key are

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

(sent again because i forgot to add the mailing list in CC, sorry) >If your level-1 key is compromised, you revoke it, generate a new one and sign >it with the level-2 key. The new level-1 key will be automatically valid for >your correspondents. > >If your level-2 key is compromised, you

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

can you please explain what are C subkey? unfortunately a search with those terms does not return nothing relevant, a direct link to some docs would be nice. Also i took a look at rfc4880bis but again i can't see how is related to C key or this argument at all. (sent again as sent only to

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 09/10/2017 08:30 PM, lesto fante wrote: If your level-1 key is compromised, you revoke it, generate a new one and sign it with the level-2 key. The new level-1 key will be automatically valid for your correspondents. If your level-2 key is compromised, you revoke it, generate a new one,

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

(you forgot to Cc: the list, I'm Cc-ing back as it doesn't seem voluntary to me) On 09/10/2017 07:50 PM, lesto fante wrote: >> Besides, there is no > need to give the same masterkey to your bank and your smart fridge, as > they will (likely?) not participate in the Web of Trust anyway > > not

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

Hello, On 09/09/2017 12:50 AM, lesto fante wrote: Tho achieve that, I think about a multilevel subkey system. The OpenPGP specification already has some support for a hierarchical system, in the form of "trust signatures". (Hereafter, I will use "trust-sign" as a verb to refer to the act

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 09/10/2017 06:36 PM, lesto fante wrote: > I am a bit confused by your "C key" terminology, i assume you are > referring to what i call "master key", or level 2 key, that now I want > to call SIGN KEY. Oh yes sorry, I forgot to explain my terminology. > Lets all agree on the terminology

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

Thanks! I though a bit more and I have now a bit more clear ideas. I want a "identity" key; this is the most important key and should be super-secure, like a hw wallet/card. In the best case scenario it is used to issue a master key, and never used again. Then we have one (or more) master key;

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

I am a bit confused by your "C key" terminology, i assume you are referring to what i call "master key", or level 2 key, that now I want to call SIGN KEY. Lets all agree on the terminology please. I propose this: level 1: IDENTITY key - keep super safe. Paranoid level safe. level 2: SIGN key -

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

> On 10 Sep 2017, at 16:28, Leo Gaspard wrote: > > I can think of at least one use case it covers in addition to an offline > masterkey (but that would also be covered by C subkeys): the ability to > sign others’ keys without using your masterkey. This would allow to not > have

Re: [Feature Request] Multiple level subkey

On 09/10/2017 04:36 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:>> My user case is simple; maintain my identity even if my master key is >> compromised. Tho achieve that, I think about a multilevel subkey >> system. > > I'm not sure how the proposed multi-level system is an improvement over > an offline