On Jan 10, 2020, at 2:36 PM, Paul Heinlein <heinl...@madboa.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 10 Jan 2020, John Sechrest wrote: > >> Since the keys are a security issue on several fronts, it would be wise to >> keep it as a separate service that you can maintain with somewhat high >> security monitoring. > > And here's the rub. Identity assurance is a hard problem to solve. > > That's one of the things about just-like-SSH model that I like. It's good > enough for most communication. You accept the initial conversation as > legitimate (and it will be in 99%+ of the cases) and only worry when things > change unexpectedly. > > That might not pass muster for communications with strict legal requirements > (HIPAA, FERPA, DoD), but it'd be fine for ordinary interactions I'd want to > keep secret: discussing financial issues with an advisor, helping a friend > with a marriage issue, getting Rich S's procmail recipes in order (ha!), etc. > One of the issues to think about is what identity assurance you’re trying to solve. All the discussion about keys is in relation to a computers identity. If you’re going to follow this through, then you need a way to manage many-to-many for keys and computers. If you’re wanting to manage people identity assurance, async communication won’t work because you will have to verify each end before you can communicate, and each end will have to prove they are who they say they are (this is not a crypto/key problem).
-- Louis Kowolowski lou...@cryptomonkeys.org <mailto:lou...@cryptomonkeys.org> Cryptomonkeys: http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/ <http://www.cryptomonkeys.com/> Making life more interesting for people since 1977 _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
