Greetings,
On Friday, 19 January 2024 at 11:40, Richard Clayton <rich...@highwayman.com> wrote: > A key point that the article misses is that yes, LOAs can (and have > been) forged. Yes, that didn't reach the final version in an explicit way... :-) > However forging them is a criminal act (in the US it will > be charged under "wirefraud" statutes) -- and numerous of the criminal > proceedings which have been undertaken for theft of IP resources have > used the wirefraud statutes. Luckly! :-) > Yes, stealing a private key (or guessing a password to it) and then > creating cryptographic signed objects is also likely to be criminal but > it may be somewhat harder for courts to understand (and for the matter > for prosecutors to identify suitable caselaw that makes the current > case > somewhat more open and shut). I completely agree. And there is a fairly recent & notorious case... > [[ Also, I have been told that some forgeries are laughably inept, > whereas laughably weak passwords are a little harder to spot ]] Nonetheless, the key idea is that we should be turning to "cryptographic trust", instead of papers (forged or not). Best Regards, Carlos > -- > richard Richard Clayton > > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary > Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. Benjamin Franklin 11 Nov 1755 > -- > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change > your subscription options, please visit: > https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg -- To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your subscription options, please visit: https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/anti-abuse-wg
