ietf-openpgp
[Top] [All Lists]

[openpgp] Opening up the debate on PKI / WoT / future of OpenPGP

2015-04-16 08:31:56
So, the OpenPGP world has always separated policy from tech. It has in effect kicked policy upstairs to the people. Hence the key signing parties and the discordance between signing meaning "I saw a passport" versus "I saw a person". This we all agreed was the smart thing to do.

However, Jon's revelation of yesterday really changed everything for me at least:


  > When 2440 started, there was an agreement with the Security
  > Area that OpenPGP would not be a "PKI" (whatever the heck
  > that means), because there was already a PKI, namely PKIX.


This thread (below) is about PGP as "a PKI" in a world where we are used to (up against) "the PKI" or incumbent x.509/CA. Now that we're watching the slow burning sunset of "the PKI," and, now that we're looking at a whole new generation of usage for PGP (*), it may become more clear that we might have to revisit this.



Context: I'm not saying I want to open up the debate. My context is that I'm already doing it. In effect <advert> I abandoned OpenPGP 2 years back so that I could build my own PKI to suit my today's requirements </advert>. To add further flesh to that, PHB is doing the same. Jon will also have something to say on this, and others...

In short, the reality is that PKIs are evolving around us, so the question is not whether to do it, it's already happening.

The question is whether to bring it back in house?


iang



(*) to explain "new generation" a bit. OpenPGP is a legacy product that deals with some niche use cases. In order to make it move forward, and in order to justify putting the rather huge shared resources into a new update, it would be nice to kick it forward to the current level of understanding ... so that if finds a whole new user base in the 2020s world (aiming ahead). I'm not saying what that is, just making a comment about market development.


On 16/04/2015 13:58 pm, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-16 at 12:13 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
On Thu, 16 Apr 2015 10:32, look@my.amazin.horse said:

Can someone explain why key usage and preference flags for the primary
were made part of user id signatures instead of a direct key signature

Note that you may put them into a direct key signature.

Assume you use the same key for home and work.  You have two user ids
but at home you use an implementation and preferences you like while at
work you have to comply with company policies and thus different
preferences.
This has however some problems, which I've mentioned already in my
initial wishlist.

- Nothing of this is really specified. One *may* interpret the standard
that it is as you say above.
- There is nothing specified that would resolve ambiguities (what if
there's both, direct-key signature and user id sig, setting the same
subpackets but with different properties)?


Right, that is a bit artifical and for example gpg uses a direct key
signature or the latest user id to get the key flags and preferences.
 From the standards PoV, the same problem as above... nothing really
specified what it means if e.g. flags are on a user sig or on a direct
key sig.
IMHO flags should anyway be immutable.



Remember that you anyway need to implement a policy on how to work with
multipe self-signatures on the same user id, or with multiple direct key
signatures.
The standard didn't even specify that newer sigs would replaces older
ones, right?

IMO all quite fuzzy and vague... :(

Cheers,
Chris.



_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp


_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>