On Oct 2, 2014, at 3:25 AM, Ben Laurie <[email protected]> wrote: >>> "Keys will be non-repudiable and thus it will clear after an adverse >>> event who facilitated the MITM attack." >> >> I still don't understand how this is true. All that "we" see is that a >> key changed, which is a completely normal event and will be happening at >> a rate which is probably difficult for "us" to even keep up with. All >> "we" really have is the word of the user that something in the log is >> inappropriate. I don't see any other real definitive "proof." >> So what's the difference between CT and "the simple thing?" In both >> cases, all we have is the word of the user that something they claim to >> be amiss is amiss. > > The difference is that with CT the user whose key changes necessarily > becomes aware that it has changed. In "the simple thing?" only the > targeted user of the key is aware of this change.
How is the owner of the key informed about the key change? - Greg -- Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Messaging mailing list [email protected] https://moderncrypto.org/mailman/listinfo/messaging
