Possibly compromised ElGamal keys [was: Re: Time for apt-secure?]
On Thursday 27 November 2003 17:53, Camillo Särs wrote: > Hi, > > As far as I can tell, apt-secure would have protected against any > compromise of the archives in this hacking incident. That is, provided > that the developers keep their private keys secure. Unfortunately, 32 keys on the current keyring use possibly compromisable ElGamal keys or subkeys, according to http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2003q4/000276.html Those affected, and the project's keyring master/mistress, may wish to consider revocations. - Joshua. -- Joshua Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solutions Architect / Principal Security Architect myinternet Limited. pgpzKF61Ocmct.pgp Description: signature
Possibly compromised ElGamal keys [was: Re: Time for apt-secure?]
On Thursday 27 November 2003 17:53, Camillo SÃrs wrote: > Hi, > > As far as I can tell, apt-secure would have protected against any > compromise of the archives in this hacking incident. That is, provided > that the developers keep their private keys secure. Unfortunately, 32 keys on the current keyring use possibly compromisable ElGamal keys or subkeys, according to http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2003q4/000276.html Those affected, and the project's keyring master/mistress, may wish to consider revocations. - Joshua. -- Joshua Goodall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Solutions Architect / Principal Security Architect myinternet Limited. pgp0.pgp Description: signature
