On Mon 2015-08-03 23:32:15 -0400, Phillip Hallam-Baker wrote:
The attack is to confuse someone's perl hack into letting someone get away
with something they should not.
This seems like an insufficiently specified attack to me. The same
"someone" controls both (fingerprint-collided) keys anyway, so even if
there's a "perl hack" involved, that someone is already authorized,
right?
can you please describe a more detailed attack scenario?
--dkg
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp